Subject: [clue] Participant info/type followup

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 01:05:18 +1100

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

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:20:30 +0000

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:
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 04:30:49 +1100

Hello Paul,

The text says media type and presentation attribute. Is that the 
relationship you're talking about?

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 
> AFAICT I could make a new definition where the a participant attached 
> to a presentation capture means that the participant is shown in the

---

From: Roberta Presta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:04:46 +0100

Hello Christian,

if we want to distinguish between the owner of the device that is 
generating the capture and the person that is represented in the 
capture, a possible solution could be the following:
- having a <participants> section within the adv
- re-define the <view> attribute (which is already used to specify what 
is represented in the capture - and which can be used also for audio 
capture), so that the view attribute can contain the reference(s) to the 
represented participants, or define a new attribute dedicated to the 
represented participants
- define a new attribute saying that a certain capture comes from the 
some participant's device
What is your feeling about it?

Roberta

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:16:27 +1100

Hello Roberta,

Please see my comments below.

Regards, Christian

> - having a <participants> section within the adv
[CNG] I think this is probably a good idea. I thought this was a way to 
minimize duplication rather than being related to distinguishing between 
the owner and who is viewed.

> - re-define the <view> attribute (which is already used to specify 
> what is represented in the capture - and which can be used also for 
> audio capture), so that the view attribute can contain the 
> reference(s) to the represented participants, or define a new 
> attribute dedicated to the represented participants
[CNG] I'm not sure we need to re-define view. I think we just need to be 
more specific on the scope of the existing participant attributes.
> some participant's device
[CNG] We could do this. I'm not sure its strictly needed however I'm not 
against it. I'd like to hear other opinions.
>> 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 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.

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:18:51 +1100

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".

Regards, Christian

On 7/03/2014 4:46 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 3/6/14 5:30 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
>> Hello Paul,
>>
> "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
>>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:46:07 -0400

> 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

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:30:34 +1100

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:
>>>>>> relates
>>>>>> attribute