Subject: [MMUSIC] IMGs in MMUSIC & text on data models

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:58:14 +0200

Hi Colin (and All)

I had a go at compressing the framework text on baseline data model related to IMG so that it is clear that we're only leaving the hole and not discussing the solution in MMUSIC. The result is below. Does this satisfy your concerns?

(Anyone else have comments?)

Cheers, Rod.

---8<---

6.3.4 Baseline (Meta)Data Model Specification
 
   A minimal IMG data model may be useful to any implementer/deployment of
   IMGs. The purpose would be to ensure that multiple metadata syntaxes
   (SDP, MPEG7, etc) can be related within the same body of IMG
   knowledge, regardless of any specific metadata and data models
   provided by the metadata syntaxes.

   Further work may be needed to meet application-specific requirements
   at defining metadata and data models for the successful deployment of
   IMGs in various environments. Existing (and future) work on these
   would need to be mapped to the IMG data types and use of the IMG
   Transfer Envelope concept as described above.

   This document is a framework for the delivery of IMG Metadata and
   thus further discussion on the definition data models for IMGs is
   beyond its scope.

--->8---

FYI, the old version:

---8<---

6.3.4 Baseline (Meta)Data Model Specification

   Relevant work-in-progress ensures that support of one, or very few,
   metadata syntaxes is not sufficient. Whereas the transport protocol
   should not restrict the metadata format, the IMG transfer envelope may
   influence the choice metadata. However, metadata in binary format
   should not be prevented, in addition to the more abundant text and
   XML syntaxes currently available.
 
   In most cases the actual content of metadata will be application, or
   service domain, specific. For instance, digital cinema distribution
   and television channels will have many different requirements. The
   task of specifying the bulk of the world's metadata is well beyond
   the scope of this document: a framework for the delivery of IMG
   metadata. We do anticipate that existing and future metadata
   specifications, including those of several working groups and
   standardization bodies, shall be able to use the services of the IMG
   framework. However, it is not essential to the current IMG work to
   specify standards with application-specific metadata.
 
   It is essential that the three IMG data types are enabled, but it may
   not be necessary to achieve this for every metadata syntax available,
   nor may it be important to the IETF to cover every possibility for
   this. Generally, Complete IMG Descriptions will be correct for existing
   syntaxes (e.g. for XML may be validated according to existing
   schema). The IMG Pointer data type may be served by a new syntax (extremely
   minimal), or this syntax may be specified as part of application-specific 
   metadata formats. Partial Descriptions may need new or modified
   syntaxes and semantics (e.g. XML schema) and mandatory fields for a
   Complete IMG Description may be redundant for a Partial Description.
   During and following the specification of the IMG transfer envelope,
   enabling the delivery of Partial Descriptions should be considered.
 
   To gain implementation experience, it is essential to agree the basics
   of IMG metadata for interoperability tests and subsequent 
   widespread deployments. So we anticipate that a minimal IMG data
   model would be useful to the Internet community.

--->8---

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:32:22 +0000

Rod,

--> <[email-masked]> writes:
> I had a go at compressing the framework text on baseline data model
> related to IMG so that it is clear that we're only leaving the hole and
> not discussing the solution in MMUSIC. The result is below. Does this
> satisfy your concerns?

Yes, is okay.
Colin