M1
From AMWA-EBU
DAY 1
Participants: John Footen, Toshiaki Kojima, Paul Gardiner, Richard Cartwright, Dieter Haas, Jean-Pierre Evain, Giorgio Dimino, Brad Gilmer, Peter Brightwell, Maarten Verwaest (webex)
Welcome address
John and Giorgio welcomed the participants to the meeting in Geneva.
Tour de table
Each participants explained his motivation and expectations in this work.
It was the first participation of Toshiaki Kojima who explained that Sony has noted the changes in production operation with fast evolving workflows. Sony clearly sees the benefit in more flexibility and agility, which SOA may provide. However, more work is needed in particular around a consensus on a common service interface. Sony intends to actively contribute to the EBU-AMWA FIMS work, which coincides with similar effort within the company.
RFT review
Executive
to be reviewd at the end.
Scope
- plan to have a diagram with intentions for future work from current limited scope to a more general work - what is it we are looking for? a common interface or the identification of services?
- discuss where the objectives should be: in the objectives?
Objectives
- RFT1
1. Basic interface layer - service description model,etc. 2. Using key basic services as examples for testing the common format 3. High level vision on workflow and services to foresee what might be done next
EDITING: John, Giorgio, Brad to complete the scope and objectives DONE
- RFT2?
1. More work on workflows and service break-out facilitated through the use of the common format of RFT1
NOTE: see if different project stages are well reflected in the executive summary and scope
Submission guidelines
- Giorgio explained the intention about a pre-submission to let contributors submit a two-page summary to check they are in scope before writing a full response.
- A RFT management team will be setup to answer questions on the RFT (without participation of potential respondents for obvious reasons).
- Rejection conditions: can we at least give a couple of criteria why a proposal would be rejected (e.g. out of scope)?
- Make sure that respondents agree with the RFT terms and conditions having the appropriate clause in the RFT submission guidelines.
- The RFT sets boundaries in terms of 'good engineering practices'.
- Templates will be provided.
EDITING: template coming at the end if requirements well designed, come with a new section and spreadsheet
NOTE: the RfT is available to all. However it is clear that some responses may not be aware of media specific requirements.
IPR Policy
The following 4 cases are covered:
- No license required
- Compensation free / RAND
- RAND
- Unwilling to commit to any of the above (subject to rejection for that reason)
The AMWA IPR policy applies primarily to AMWA members. The situation about non-AMWA members has been clarified.
NOTE: Brad to make an adaptation of the AMWA rules to make them apply to this and then provide a link to this IPR framework
Part 2 introduction
NOTE: to be deleted to avoid duplication with excutive summary
Reference Model
NOTE: clarifiy the scope of this section with text along the following lines: Respondents are invited to draft their proposal along the line of the OASIS reference models, which is used here a set of common definitions for the description of services
EDITING: John, Brad and Giorgio extract text to go to scope and objectives WORK IN PROGRESS
EDITING: Jean-Pierre and Richard to work on why we have the reference model section DONE
NOTE: move the text to the scope expect for the architecture reference modelaspects.
This section needs editing.
NOTE: make one global section with bibliographic references at the end of the RFT
Lines of business
EDITING: John Footen. DONE
This is an informative section on the needs of the media indsutry to the attention of respondents who may not know this domain of operation
USER REQUIREMENTS (ex SOA Best practices and guidelines for media)
NOTE:This section will be renamed and will cover all the requirements. DONE
This section must be revised to make sure that the reader doesn't have the impression that he is asked for a particular solution (support of codecs) but rather respond to the need for a framework (it should be possible to describe services compatible with a wide range of codecs or different type of files - small, big, collections of related audio and video files, etc.).
NOTE: decide how to rewrite this section to come with a template / spreasheet to review if requirements are covered and pointing to specific sections in proposals
NOTE: we need to highlight the media specificities of the project
EDITING: Brad and Hans going through the section on a new section on REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDLEINES, identify requirements compatible with spreadsheet template with numbered requirements DONE MORE POLISHING WORK NEEDED
EDITING: Peter, Dieter and Richard must fill the gaps WORK IN PROGRESS
Business functions and requirements
To be deleted. Out of scope of the RFT? This will be documented as tart of the post-RFT report.
Industry Decomposition - vision part of the RFT
This section is to address part 3 of the RFT about high level vision from respondent on the evolution of SOA after a common definition format has been agreed.
EDITING: Paul, Toshiaki DONE
This now covers broadcast production, News, Sports and Feature film and serials.
NOTE: Where this section goes is to be decided. Likely in the user requirements section
Use cases
These use cases are the verification use cases for test and representatio of their respective technology.
The proposal is to keep the following basic services and refer to use cases accordingly:
- interactive capture -> refers to the use case on the wiki currently
- move/transfer -> as it would be used in the publishing use case
- transcode -> as it would be used either in the capture or publishing use cases
NOTE: transfer the publishing use case on the wiki
EDITING: to be done. review the use cases and see how the use of the basic services can be referred to to help in the process
UMLs
Deleted - currently out of scope
DAY 2
Participants: John, Toshiaki, Paul Peter, Dieter, Richard, Giorgio, Brad, Jean-Pierre, Frank (webex - part of time)
Executive Summary
To be done by Brad and John
Scope and objectives
A diagram will be added that clarifies what is in scope and out of scope.
The scope has been reviewed and the timeline (to be added to the wiki) extended including reference to RFT2. The diagram on te FIMS process will be improved.
IPR policy
In order to comply with AMWA rules and ensure equal treatment for non-AMWA members, the only conditions under which proposals will be accepted will be:
- no compensation
- no compensation AND additional RAND conditions
There will be a FIMS IPR policy corresponding to the RFT.
This is still work in progress and more information will be provided on the FIMS implementers agreement through which conditions of use (compensation free) will be defined.
User requirements
Still some work to be done on the wiki on this section from which a template for requirements (spreadsheet) will also be derived to help respondent highlight what requirement is met or not by their respective proposal.
ACTION: Peter, Dieter, Rochard to complete this a.s.a.p
This will cover the cover the review of the use cases for the basic services.
This section will also contain the text on decomposition.
Templates will be derived from the user requirements section.
Basic services and use cases
These sections will be updated. This is covered as part of the work on requirements.
Decomposition
This section will be merged with user requirements.
Editing timeline
- 10 March, user requirements by Richard, Peter, Dieter
- 10 March, Executive Summary by Brad and John
- 10 march, IPR policy by Brad and Jean-Pierre
- 17 March, final edit on wiki, text locked on wiki
- 24 March, draft from EBU editor by Roger
- 27 March, list of recipients by John
- 31 March, RFT release
