Re: [clue] Participant info/type followup

[Christian Groves <[e-mail]>]

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
>>
>
>