Showing posts with label w3c. Show all posts
Showing posts with label w3c. Show all posts

Thursday, February 10, 2011

MPEG DASH vs. W3C WebTV?

The second W3C Web and TV workshop was held from February 8th-9th, 2011 in Berlin, Germany. The agenda was packed with interesting topics including use cases, adaptive HTTP streaming, content protection, metadata, HTML5, accessibility, and testing. Also others reported on the topic already.

I could not attend this meeting but I followed the Twitter stream #w3ctv which revealed some interesting thoughts from George and Alexander (cf. also screenshots) concerning the adopting of MPEG DASH for W3C WebTV. Alexander, I don't know whether a mug of hot tea helps here...

In general I think that DASH would just work for W3C WebTV and concerning royalties I'd like to quote from the minutes, "it needs to be clear that it is the companies that we have to ask, not the SDOs" - I fully agree [the minutes of the workshop (in usual W3C style) are available here (day #1) and here (day #2)].

In this context it's probably worth reading the following article describing Microsofts approach of "undoing Chrome's AVC (aka H.264) omission". I'm personally wondering what is better, having technology available as open source/royalty free but controlled by a single evil/not evil - whatever you prefer - entity (company) or paying license fees but having clear rules for joining/playing the game of developing and maintaining (corrigenda, amendment) a standard. I'd love to read your comments, feedback, and suggestions ...

Thursday, February 4, 2010

W3C's "The System Information API"

W3C has published a first working draft out of their Device APIs and Policy Working Group and it is for sure worth to look into. Let's have a look at the abstract:
This specification defines an API to provide Web applications with access to various properties of the system which they are running on. Specifically, properties pertaining to the device hardware are addressed. Examples include battery status, current network bandwidth. Additionally, some of those properties offer access to the environment around the device, such as ambient brightness or atmospheric pressure.
Remember that's a first working draft which means it's still subject to changes. There's also a nice figure that gives a good overview which APIs one can anticipate in this standard.
In any case, I would appreciate if W3C could define the scope of this specification and what they actually mean by a "system". A proper definition thereof is somewhat missing at the moment but remember, it's a first working draft only...

Finally, defining APIs are now in vogue within SDOs as W3C is doing it for a while, MPEG has some APIs defined and will continue this path, and I wonder whether IETF is also about to join the API club.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

W3C Relaunches Multimodal Interaction Working Group

W3C is pleased to announce the relaunch of the Multimodal Interaction Working Group to develop technology that enables users to use their preferred modes of interaction with the Web. Deborah Dahl (Invited Expert) chairs the group which is chartered to develop open standards to adapt to device, user and environmental conditions, and to allow multiple modes of Web interaction including GUI, speech, vision, pen, gestures, haptic interfaces, sensor data, etc. W3C Members may use this form to join the Working Group. Read about the Multimodal Interaction Activity.

Very interesting as this WG aims bringing the Emotion Markup Language to Candidate Recommendation. So far the Elements of an EmotionML 1.0 have been identified as a W3C Incubator Group Report. Interestingly, ISO/IEC MPEG also has emotions within the scope of its MPEG-V work item. I wonder whether both groups could benefit from each other, the one way or the other ... let me know what is your opinion.

Friday, July 3, 2009

W3C Launches Device APIs and Policy Working Group

W3C launched a new Device APIs and Policy Working Group, co-Chaired by Robin Berjon (Vodafone) and Frederick Hirsch (Nokia). The group's mission is to create client-side APIs that enable the development of Web Applications and Web Widgets that interact with devices services such as Calendar, Contacts, and Camera. Additionally, the group will produce a framework for the expression of security policies that govern access to security-critical APIs (such as the APIs listed previously). Per its charter, this group will conduct its work in public. Learn more about the Device APIs and Policy Working Group.

Hmm, they could be interested in the MPEG Extensible Middleware (MXM) which also specifies API that might be exploited by the W3C Device API.

Friday, June 19, 2009

First Draft Published for Ontology for Media Resource 1.0

The Media Annotations Working Group has published the First Public Working Draft of Ontology for Media Resource 1.0. This specification defines an ontology for cross-community data integration of information related to media resources, with a particular focus on media resources on the Web. The ontology is supposed to foster interoperability and counter the current proliferation of video metadata formats by providing full or partial translation and mapping towards existing formats. Learn more about the Video in the Web Activity.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0 Draft Published

The Media Annotations Working Group has published a Working Draft of Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0. This document specifies use cases and requirements as an input for the development of the "Ontology for Media Object 1.0" and the "API for Media Object 1.0". The ontology will be a simple ontology to support cross-community data integration of information related to media objects on the Web. The API will provide read access and potentially write access to media objects, relying on the definitions from the ontology. Learn more about the Video in the Web Activity.

This is the second version of this working draft and from the
"Purpose of the Ontology and the API" section I've extracted the following:

The ontology will define mappings from properties in formats to a common set of properties. The API then will define methods to access heterogeneous metadata, using such mappings. An example: the property createDate from XMP can be mapped to the property DateCreated from IPTC. The API will then define a method getCreateDate that will return values either from XMP or IPTC metadata.

An important aspect of the above figure is that everything visualized above the API is left to applications. For example.

  • languages for simple or complex queries

  • analysis of user preferences (like "preferring movies with actor X and suitable for children")

  • other mechanisms for accessing metadata

The ontology and the API provide merely a basic, simple means of interoperability for such applications.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Guidelines for Writing Device Independent Tests Note Published

The Mobile Web Initiative Test Suites Working Group has published a Group Note of Guidelines for writing device independent tests. As support for Web technologies grows, it is important that tests writers develop test suites that will work as well as possible across devices. This document offers guidance in the form of simple guidelines to follow to create device-independent tests. Learn more about the Mobile Web Initiative Activity.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Mobile Web Application Best Practices Draft Published

The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has published a Working Draft of Mobile Web Application Best Practices. This document specifies Best Practices for the development and delivery of Web applications on mobile devices. The recommendations expand upon statements made in the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 (BP1), especially those that relate to the exploitation of device capabilities and awareness of the delivery context. Learn more about the Mobile Web Initiative Activity.

Interesting that there's also a section about user experience including perceived latency, interaction method, and data consistency. Furthermore, they describe how to handle device capability variation. In other words, adaptation but mainly at the server or client and not within the network. I would appreciate if they could also consider this as a possibility...

Friday, May 1, 2009

W3C: First Draft of Use cases and requirements for Media Fragments

The Media Fragments Working Group has published the First Public Working Draft of Use cases and requirements for Media Fragments. The aim of this specification is to enhance the Web infrastructure for supporting the addressing and retrieval of subparts of time-based Web resources. Example uses are the sharing of such fragment URIs with friends via email, the automated creation of such fragment URIs in a search engine interface, or the annotation of media fragments with RDF. This specification will help make video a first-class citizen of the World Wide Web. In addition to describing use cases for the Media Fragments 1.0 specification, this document discusses syntax and processing of media fragment URIs, and offers survey of technologies that address multimedia fragments. Learn more about the Video in the Web Activity.

A lot of use cases including on about adapting media resources but some are marked out-of-scope. Why are they still there? Furthermore, "just four requirements" related to temporal, spatial, track, and named fragments have been defined. There's an overlap between named fragments and the rest and it seems they're more seeking for human readability and named fragments is the solution for that requirement. Just take this as a remark.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Note Published: W3C Personalization Roadmap: Ubiquitous Web Integration of AccessForAll 1.0

The Ubiquitous Web Applications Working Group has published the Group Note of W3C Personalization Roadmap: Ubiquitous Web Integration of AccessForAll 1.0. This document describes an activity of integrating personalization with device context for the delivery of content materials and interface components that are customized to meet both individual personal needs and preferences and delivery context. It brings together the work of separate standards and specifications organizations and working groups, notably W3C Ubiquitous Web Applications working group, IMS Global Learning Consortium Accessibility Special Interest group, ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 Information Technology for Learning, Education and Training: Human Diversity and Access For All working group and associated working groups in SC36. The document should be viewed as a roadmap for the work to be undertaken and includes description of the basis for the work, the organizational context, the likely technologies and a partially complete description of how the technologies fit together. Learn more about the Ubiquitous Web Applications Activity.

They probably should also include the work of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 (MPEG) on Usage Environment Description (UED) which also provides means to describe user characteristics including accessibility information. UED has been standardized within Part 7 of MPEG-21, entitled Digital Item Adaptation (DIA). The UED Schema can be found here and just search for AuditoryImpairment or VisualImpairment.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Efficient XML Interchange Evaluation Draft Published

2009-04-07: The Efficient XML Interchange Working Group has published a Working Draft of Efficient XML Interchange Evaluation. This document presents the anticipated benefits of the EXI format 1.0 compared to XML and gzipped XML. Additionally, tests for compactness include comparison to ASN.1 PER. The points of comparison are the requirements set by the EXI Working Group charter, based on the results of the XML Binary Characterization Working Group. Learn more about the Extensible Markup Language (XML) Activity.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Adapting Content

Franklin Reynolds, "Adapting Content", IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 6-8, Oct.-Dec. 2008

This is an interesting article which provides a solid description on how ‘device independence’ can be achieved by utilizing recent W3C standards. It provides a good introduction, highlights some of the main issues, and gives accurate pointers to the state-of-the-art W3C standards and those under development. There’s one statement in the article that I find very interesting which is:
“DIAL will make it possible to create a Web page whose presentation can be controlled by the properties of a delivery context.”
DIAL (Device Independent Authoring Language) and the delivery context – cf. Delivery Context Client Interfaces (DCCI) and Delivery Context Ontology (DCO) – seem to be a competitor of MPEG’s Digital Item Declaration (DID), Multimedia Description Schemes (MDS), and Usage Environment Description (UED). I wonder whether there exists a thorough and, of course, not taking sides comparison of these formats and whether it is possible to harmonize at least parts thereof. For sure that’s a job for academics because these standardization bodies might not be interested in doing this let’s call it academic exercise.

Furthermore, still a big issue is how all these assets are actually communicated over the various networks. The article mentions IETF’s “Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP” although this RFC2295 is rather old and, more importantly, is ‘experimental’. Additionally, there exist some extensions of HTTP to carry CC/PP-based descriptions defined in RFC2774 identifying the profile or a difference to an existing profile - also ‘experimental’. However, DCO (an all others) may require yet another HTTP extension and, thus, there’s a need to decouple the communication/negotiation of the delivery context and usage environment properties from the actual (transport) protocol.

Finally, CC/PP defines only a ‘container format’, i.e., the language constructs, while UAProf defines the actual ‘terms’, i.e., a vocabulary of actual hardware, software, … characteristics for mobile devices.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Service Modeling Language, Version 1.1 Proposed Recommendation

The Service Modeling Language Working Group has published the Proposed Recommendations of Service Modeling Language, Version 1.1 and Service Modeling Language Interchange Format Version 1.1. SML extends the coherence-checking mechanisms of W3C XML Schema from individual documents to collections of documents. SML-IF extends the utility of SML by providing mechanisms for gathering together a set of documents whose coherence is guaranteed by an SML schema, which itself is part of the resulting package.

From the SML's abstract I read "... used to model complex services and systems, including their structure, constraints, policies, and best practices. SML uses XML Schema and Schematron." It's very interesting to see that SML adopts both XML Schema and Schematron (see related blog posts at O'Reilly). I wonder whether there're any adoptions thereof in the multimedia domain, maybe related to the MPEG-21 Multimedia Framework ...

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Widgets 1.0: APIs and Events

The Web Applications Working Group has published the First Public Working Draft of Widgets 1.0: APIs and Events. This specification defines a set of APIs and events for the Widgets 1.0 Family of Specifications that enable baseline functionality for widgets. The APIs and Events defined by this specification defines, amongst other things, the means to:
  • access the metadata declared in a widget's configuration document,
  • receive events related to changes in the view state of a widget,
  • determine the locale under which a widget is currently running,
  • be notified of events relating to the widget being updated,
  • invoke a widget to open a URL on the system's default browser,
  • requests the user's attention in a device independent manner,
  • and check if any additional APIs requested via the configuration document's feature element have successfully loaded.
Learn more about the Rich Web Client Activity.

This is somewhat related to MPEG's Rich Media User Interface Framework for which the Call for Proposals is open until April. Requirements for the this Rich Media UI Framework can be found here and some further information about this interesting exploration activity can be found here.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

W3C Multimodal Standard Brings Web to More People, More Ways

As part of ensuring the Web is available to all people on any device, W3C published a new standard today to enable interactions beyond the familiar keyboard and mouse. EMMA, the EMMA: Extensible MultiModal Annotation Markup Language, promotes the development of rich Web applications that can be adapted to more input modes (such as handwriting, natural language, and gestures) and output modes (such as synthesized speech) at lower cost. The document, published by the Multimodal Interaction Working Group, is part of a set of specifications for multimodal systems, and provides details of an XML markup language for containing and annotating the interpretation of user input. Read the press release and testimonials, and learn more about the Multimodal Interaction Activity.

Wow, this development really took a long time but interesting stuff though. The first WD dates back to August 2003 which makes me wonder whether somebody will use/implement that. Nevertheless, it can be used for universal multimedia access w.r.t. multimodal interaction to the content. Other activities of this working group comprise Multimodal Architectures and Interfaces and Ink Markup Language (InkML) both at WD stage. Hope its development does not last forever...

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Cool URIs

The best resource identifiers don't just provide descriptions for people and machines, but are designed with simplicity, stability and manageability in mind, as explained by Tim Berners-Lee in Cool URIs don't change and by the W3C Team in Common HTTP Implementation Problems (sections 1 and 3):

Simplicity.
Short, mnemonic URIs will not break as easily when sent in emails and are in general easier to remember, e.g. when debugging your Semantic Web server.
Stability.
Once you set up a URI to identify a certain resource, it should remain this way as long as possible. Think about the next ten years. Maybe twenty. Keep implementation-specific bits and pieces such as .php and .asp out of your URIs, you may want to change technologies later.
Manageability.
Issue your URIs in a way that you can manage. One good practice is to include the current year in the URI path, so that you can change the URI-schema each year without breaking older URIs. Keeping all 303 URIs on a dedicated subdomain, e.g. http://id.example.com/alice, eases later migration of the URI-handling subsystem.
Please, keep this in mind when assigning, generating, etc. URIs because then you're cool!

Monday, December 1, 2008

SMIL 3.0 Advances Standard for Synchronized Multimedia

Just from the W3C news: Today, W3C announced a new standard to make it easier to author interactive multimedia presentations. Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) 3.0 allows video, audio, images, text, and hypertext links to be combined into interactive presentations, with fine-grain control of layout and timing.

"The importance of SMIL 3.0 is that it contains a set of user-requested features that provide exciting new functionality, while retaining all the advantages of a declarative (that is, without scripting) approach to building a multimedia presentation," said Dick Bulterman, chair of the Synchronized Multimedia Working Group, which published the specification.

The new features in SMIL (pronounced, "smile") are a direct response to user and industry demand. For instance, the standard allows full-motion, timed captions and labels to be directly inserted in the presentation (called smilText). And SMIL's media pan-zoom control allows people to create "Ken Burns"-style animations easily for photos and visual content. SMIL 3.0 also allows authors to embed timed metadata in presentations, making SMIL a useful descriptive language for the development of Semantic Web resources that evolve over time.

Personal Note: SMIL's Content Control Modules allow for selective/adaptive multimedia presentations through the switch element. SMIL 3.0 Content Control introduces three new attributes: allowReorder, systemBaseProfile, and systemVersion. Additionally, the new module RequiredContentControl has been defined that allows the systemRequired attribute to be specified in profiles that do not otherwise use SMIL content control.

The profile name might one of "Language" | "UnifiedMobile" | "Daisy" | "Tiny" | "smilText" |User-defined-profile-name. User-defined profiles are possible also.