Re: [clue] Participant info/type followup

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

ISTM we have both a semantic issue and a syntactic/terminological issue:

- we have the semantic distinction between who is represented within
   the capture and who is responsible for sending the capture

- we have a terminology issue regarding what to call these two things

I think we now agree that the semantic distinction is real and should be 
identified in the advertisement.

Regarding terminology, IMO we should use two different terms to identify 
these. At most one of them should be called "participant". Given the 
conflict with xcon, perhaps *neither* of them should be called participant.

This is mostly a data model issue. Some of it might need to peek through 
into the framework. And what does should be consistent.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 4/1/14 7:13 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
> Hello Roberta,
>
>  From a data model perspective I agree that it makes sense to have the
> participant metadata "referenced" to minimize duplication in the
> messages. So I support your solution in the data model to the redundancy
> problem.
>
> In general I think its good to maintain consistency between the
> framework and the data model. However in London I thought this was more
> of a syntax shortcut (like the captureID wildcarding) rather than
> something we'd need to formalize in the framework. I guess we could add
> it at a higher level in the framework (it would functionally be the same
> thing), it would just be more work for the editor...
>
> I could go either way on this.
>
> Regards, Christian
>
> On 1/04/2014 9:15 PM, Roberta Presta wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> In section 7.1.1.X we are dealing with media capture attributes and in
>> section 7.1.1.11 we want to define an attribute conveying information
>> about participants.
>> I would say that here we can find both information (*references*, in
>> the data model) about "who is represented in the capture" ("captured
>> participants"?) and "who is the owner of the generating device"
>> ("owner"?).
>>
>> Maybe participant metadata, such as Participant Information and
>> Participant Type as they are currently defined, should be treated in a
>> separate section of the same level of capture scenes or media captures
>> as.
>> Indeed we showed in London that repeating the vcard and the role of
>> the participants in each capture, as if they were capture attributes,
>> causes redundancy.
>>
>> I know that I have a data model definition perspective, but I would
>> propose to make a change that is more coherent with what we will
>> describe formally.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Roberta
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Il 01/04/2014 03:30, Christian Groves ha scritto:
>>> Hello Paul, all,
>>>
>>> If we follow the approach that there is a specific indicating of
>>> whether the participant information is based on an explicit
>>> indication then I would suggest the following text for the framework:
>>>
>>> Clause 7.1.11 Participant information
>>> (Under the 1st paragraph)
>>>
>>> The participant information contains an explicit indication of
>>> whether it relates to a participant contained in the capture, from a
>>> participants capture device or both. For example a video camera may
>>> capture an image containing the participant, or a participant may
>>> send a video capture with a presentation that does not depict the
>>> participant.
>>>
>>> Something similar would be needed under participant type.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Regards, Christian
>>>
>>> On 20/03/2014 6:46 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>>> On 3/18/14 11:18 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>>>> Hello Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> "How" they differ is given by the example bullets below the
>>>>> sentence. If
>>>>> you want something more normative we could remove the "For example".
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I don't believe in specification by example. :-)
>>>>
>>>> IMO it is a bit dicey to base this distinction on the type of capture.
>>>>
>>>> I'm more comfortable with an explicit syntactic indication of the
>>>> distinction, such as proposed by Roberta.
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>     Paul
>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Christian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/03/2014 4:46 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/14 5:30 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The text says media type and presentation attribute. Is that the
>>>>>>> relationship you're talking about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "How the generated content relates to the entity described in the
>>>>>> participant info is dependent on media type and and the presentation
>>>>>> attribute."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take that to mean that the relationship may be different for
>>>>>> presentation streams than non-presentation streams. But it doesn't
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> *how* they differ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>>>     Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards, Christian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/03/2014 4:20 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>>>>>>> Christian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've read the quoted text several times, and I cannot figure out
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> to *derive* your example conclusions from it. The text says the
>>>>>>>> relationship is dependent on the presentation attribute, but not
>>>>>>>> how.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AFAICT I could make a new definition where the a participant
>>>>>>>> attached
>>>>>>>> to a presentation capture means that the participant is shown in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> presentation, and that would be equally compatible with the text.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ISTM that more text is required to actually specify the
>>>>>>>> relationships.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>>>>>     Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/6/14 2:05 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To follow up on Jonathon's comments on participant info/type
>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>> semantics and particularly how it relates to a presentation.
>>>>>>>>> Here's a
>>>>>>>>> first stab at some text to stimulate some discussions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The participant info attribute allows a provider to associate
>>>>>>>>> participant information with the capture source. When used in an
>>>>>>>>> individual capture it indicates that the captured content (e.g.
>>>>>>>>> video/audio/text etc.) as opposed to the actual media streams is
>>>>>>>>> generated from the entity described. How the generated content
>>>>>>>>> relates
>>>>>>>>> to the entity described in the participant info is dependent on
>>>>>>>>> media
>>>>>>>>> type and and the presentation attribute.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>> - a video capture with participant info would indicate that the
>>>>>>>>> video
>>>>>>>>> contains a picture of the entity associated with the information
>>>>>>>>> provided.
>>>>>>>>> - a video capture with participant info and the presentation
>>>>>>>>> attribute
>>>>>>>>> would indicate that the presentation video is associated with the
>>>>>>>>> participant but could contain any video content.
>>>>>>>>> - a text capture with participant info would indicate that the
>>>>>>>>> text is
>>>>>>>>> generated from the actual participant.
>>>>>>>>> - a text capture with participant info and the presentation
>>>>>>>>> attribute
>>>>>>>>> would indicate that the text is associated with the participant
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> could contain any text content."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Comments?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards, Christian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> clue mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> clue mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> clue mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> clue mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>