RE: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future?
Sorry Chris, missed your reply. I'm no SPARQL expert but storing some additional contextual info in tuples in-house shouldn't require overhauling how things currently work. More media pipelines are quietly syphoning off stuff, into semantic knowledge stores, as a byproduct of regular publishing. I'd certainly recommend an iterative approach rather than keeping everything under wraps till some uber (BBC3.0?? ;) solution is available. Drafting ontologies, publishing static RDF files from current systems, could help get the ball rolling because early adoptors like us could independently pilot and feedback what data mining is and isn't that useful to storytellers. Cheers .M. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Sizemore Sent: 05 March 2008 18:03 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future? oh, but you mention SPARQL queries, so doesn't that mean that we'd need full resource/RDF/URIs approach at least internally at the Beeb? or at least the capability and internal structure and data model in place internally to publish our data out to the world at a SPARQL end-point? to really offer SPARQL GUIDs are probably neither here nor there, but we'd need to do pretty well with URIs, no? personally, i liked the suggestion earlier to use dBpedia.org URIs as a starter lingua franca of URIs... clearly that wouldn't be relevant for IDing many of the resources pertinent to the editing suite, but even there it'd be relevant for some (people the video clip was about, etc) best-- --cs -Original Message- From: Chris Sizemore Sent: Wed 3/5/2008 6:38 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future? wow, now that's a cool idea. any BBC DMI guys lurking on the list? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Michela Ledwidge Sent: Wed 3/5/2008 1:08 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future? BBC Vision edit log data would be good. Lots of useful meta-data there. As for getting the meaning out there. GUIDs might be less important than being able to perform semantic queries on whatever naming conventions exist already around the Beeb. e.g. creating a pool of edit log data and opening it up for SPARQL queries would perhaps be very useful. Not necessarily that useful having a particular tape ID as a GUID The ability to run queries over film/video logs, typically only viewed by editors, would no doubt reveal gems for repurposing and redistribution, let along allowing the Beeb to track and re-use source material better. Cheers .M. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Chris Sizemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > cool stuff richard. > > so how do/should we expose GUIDs to the outside world, in a sorta "Web" > kind of way? cause it's not enough to just generate unique IDs internally, > we also have to "broadcast" their, um, "meaning" to the world at large... > > in other words, seems like you need the ID, some metadata to describe the > thing ID'd, and a publishing/broadcasting mechanism so that other > people/systems know you have info to communicate. > > a la: > > HYPERLINK "http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ba853904-ae25-4ebb-89d6-c44cfbd71bd2.html"htt p://musicbrainz.org/artist/ba853904-ae25-4ebb-89d6-c44cfbd71bd2.html > > sounds like the Web to me... and MusicBrainz, for instance, is an example > of all of the above, no? > > but now, don't we need an EverythingBrainz (as a colleague of mine > recently put it)? > > (BTW, i'm a person that feels that URLs, by definition, are GUIDs) > > > best-- > > --cs > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Richard Cartwright > Sent: Tue 3/4/2008 5:31 PM > To: BBC Backstage > Subject: Re: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC > Vision in the near future? > > Chris > > I¹ve a lot of recent experience with 16-byte UUIDs for identifying content > (RFC 4122) and the slightly more media-savy 32-byte Unique Material > Identification (UMID) from SMPTE (SMPTE 330M). Both standards are the > basis > for the Advanced Authoring Format, an industry standard used by video > production tools from companies such as Avid and Quantel, and the related > Material Exchange Format (MXF) used for production material interchange > and > now supported by a number of broadcast quality cameras, transcoders etc.. > > UUIDs are also known as GUIDs and are common to Microsoft Windows OS. Many > unix OSs have a ³uuidgen² command to create UUIDs. Java has a > ³java.util.UUID² class for generating and representing UUIDs. UUIDs are > very > well supported and have been the subject of some interesting security > issues > as without careful use they can expose your h
RE: [backstage] Is it just me, or is some stereo audio on BBC chans (Freeview) out of phase?
> Can you give an exact channel, date and time when you > observed the phenomenon? (03:59 GMT last night on N24, perhaps?) Definitely. Observable on BBC2 last night/this morning (05/03/2008) during the intro for "Spin" (03:44am). Also observable during the 60second countdown buffer for N24 top of the hour (4am). I can send MPEG2 files if you want (direct streamrip, advantage of having USB DTV receiver). - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
Richard Smedley wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:55 +, Jason Cartwright wrote: >> Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in >> Flash (where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently) > > Yes, I'd noticed other people's computers seemed to > carry umpteen more ads than mine on most websites ;^) The internet has adverts? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865 David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:55 +, Jason Cartwright wrote: > Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in > Flash (where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently) Yes, I'd noticed other people's computers seemed to carry umpteen more ads than mine on most websites ;^) - Richard - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
- Hum... *only* sound and video? All that content is a pretty big deal. - Cross-browser client-side storage? Sure, you can do it in JS, sometimes, using one of many APIs, but flash's shared object could make a good fallback (I've not tried this though). - Don't most JS uploaders will use a (hidden? 1px by 1px?) flash file in the page to do the heavy lifting (again, I've not tried this)? Seems Flickr's does. - Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in Flash (where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently) J On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Once you remove games, I believe there are only 3 things Flash player has > that cannot be recreated with html + css + javascript: > > 1. binary socket (Audio, Video) > 2. XML socket > 3. no page refresh file upload with user feedback events (% loaded etc) > > I'm hoping someone can remove item 3 for me with a link to some fancy JS > uploader > > S. > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the > > > legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break > > > misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the > > > freedom of software users being compromised. > > > > > > That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is > > > counter-productive precisely because it supports something that isn't > > > an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was an > > > open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or > > > DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could > > > provide such a standard that would be really positive. > > The BBC have already announced that they are working on a standard with > > a number of other companies. > > http://www.p2p-next.org/ > > - > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > > please visit > > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > > Unofficial list archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > > -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161 www.jasoncartwright.com +44(0)7976500729
Re: [backstage] One-day Conference To Help Web Developers Address Accessibility in Web 2.0
I agree that accessibility is below the radar of most developers. Less important topics are too, such as color management (modern browsers interpret ICC color profiles). In my experience, what's effective is to videotape the conference and publish the video and audio recordings with transcripts, thus making available the presentations, comments, Q&A and learnings to all. That can be expensive of course if commercial firms are contracted with, but sometimes outreach to the community concerned can be the solution: offering e.g. free transport to a participant willing to record the event, finding volunteers to transcribe, etc. Sean On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Andrew Disley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5 Mar 2008, at 13:21, Mr I Forrester wrote: > > > I don't believe there will be, but ability.net have said they want > > to do more of them depending on this event. Maybe even even up north > > Tim. > > > I for one am very really pleased to see an event dedicated to this > topic, congratulations to AbilityNet and all involved. It's about time > we had some focus on this topic, for years the 'bigger' events only > ever have one or two sessions on accessibility - and they are usually > only a top level view on the issues, which many of us have herd over > and over. > > I agree the costs are a little off putting for smaller outfits who > will need to find accommodation, travel and give up a day's worth of > income. I would defiantly consider attending of my own back if this > came up North, unless I can convince my employer to send me to London. > > > > > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
Once you remove games, I believe there are only 3 things Flash player has that cannot be recreated with html + css + javascript: 1. binary socket (Audio, Video) 2. XML socket 3. no page refresh file upload with user feedback events (% loaded etc) I'm hoping someone can remove item 3 for me with a link to some fancy JS uploader S. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the > > legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break > > misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the > > freedom of software users being compromised. > > > > That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is > > counter-productive precisely because it supports something that isn't > > an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was an > > open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or > > DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could > > provide such a standard that would be really positive. > The BBC have already announced that they are working on a standard with > a number of other companies. > http://www.p2p-next.org/ > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ >
Re: [backstage] One-day Conference To Help Web Developers Address Accessibility in Web 2.0
On 5 Mar 2008, at 13:21, Mr I Forrester wrote: I don't believe there will be, but ability.net have said they want to do more of them depending on this event. Maybe even even up north Tim. I for one am very really pleased to see an event dedicated to this topic, congratulations to AbilityNet and all involved. It's about time we had some focus on this topic, for years the 'bigger' events only ever have one or two sessions on accessibility - and they are usually only a top level view on the issues, which many of us have herd over and over. I agree the costs are a little off putting for smaller outfits who will need to find accommodation, travel and give up a day's worth of income. I would defiantly consider attending of my own back if this came up North, unless I can convince my employer to send me to London. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] One-day Conference To Help Web Developers Address Accessibility in Web 2.0
I don't believe there will be, but ability.net have said they want to do more of them depending on this event. Maybe even even up north Tim. Fearghas McKay wrote: On 5 Mar 2008, at 12:24, Tim Dobson wrote: students... (yes, £90 *is* a lot for a student if you add it to travel and accomodation) I couldn't agree more. £150 for freelancers who live locally, who I bounced this to, has been more than they can afford. And a complete non-starter for coming down from Edinburgh. Is remote participation an option? f - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the freedom of software users being compromised. That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is counter-productive precisely because it supports something that isn't an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was an open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could provide such a standard that would be really positive. The BBC have already announced that they are working on a standard with a number of other companies. http://www.p2p-next.org/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] One-day Conference To Help Web Developers Address Accessibility in Web 2.0
On 5 Mar 2008, at 12:24, Tim Dobson wrote: students... (yes, £90 *is* a lot for a student if you add it to travel and accomodation) I couldn't agree more. £150 for freelancers who live locally, who I bounced this to, has been more than they can afford. And a complete non-starter for coming down from Edinburgh. Is remote participation an option? f - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future?
Just a list of what we're planning in /programmes world: >In-programme timing of generic objects or people in the first instance just for music content - in the future possible tagging of programme segments as interviews with people, profiles of, recipes, news stories etc > TV schedules as a API with past and future ability So soon you wouldn't believe > Direct links to iplayer programmes Soon > XML of upcoming iplayer programmes Not properly considered but we should do yes > XML of programmes about to drop off iplayer (see Matthews prototype next > slide) Ditto > Links between programmes and their programme catalogue entry Not soon but hopefully not too distant either > The Programme Catalogue and synced with Dbpedia Now you're talking - we hope to provide /programmes as linked open data soon - linking to dbpedia still to be solved - see chris sizemore emails > A reference page or service for all programmes (/programmes in XML) Soon > XML or pub/sub messages for upcoming and favourite programmes Xml soon for upcoming > Ability to link BBC identity with favourite programmes One day > Keywords, Tags and Search across them and other data Soon On 5/3/08 12:09, "Mr I Forrester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks to everyone who answered, some really interesting thoughts for > DMI and other advanced prototypes. I'm presenting your ideas on Friday, > so this is what I have across two slides > > In-programme timing of generic objects or people > Access to the Edit logs of programme makers > Access to the scripts with timings > TV schedules as a API with past and future ability > Direct links to iplayer programmes > XML of upcoming iplayer programmes > XML of programmes about to drop off iplayer (see Matthews prototype next > slide) > Links between programmes and their programme catalogue entry > The Programme Catalogue and synced with DBpedia > A reference page or service for all programmes (/programmes in XML) > Small image/icon per programme with the rights cleared > XML or pub/sub messages for upcoming and favourite programmes > Ability to link BBC identity with favourite programmes > Keywords, Tags and Search across them and other data > Access to Subtitle data in XML > Videos in alternative formats Wmv, Theora, Dirac, etc > > I'm going to spend at least 25% of my presentation on these points > alone. Who knows maybe they will sink in and we might get some traction > in certain areas. > > Cheers, > > Ian > > Ian Forrester wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I was hoping to get a brainstorm of ideas for APIs and Feeds you would love >> to play with in the near future, while focusing on Vision/TV >> >> I got most of the obvious stuff like, >> >> - A 31 day schedule in XML >> - TV schedules as a API with past and future ability >> - Direct links to iplayer programmes >> - XML/RSS/ATOM/JSON of upcoming iplayer programmes >> - XML/RSS/ATOM/JSON of programmes about to drop off iplayer >> - Links between programmes and their programme catalogue entry >> - The Programme Catalogue! :) >> - A reference page or service for all programmes (/programmes in XML) >> - XMPP pub/sub messages for upcoming programmes >> - keywords >> >> Anything more? >> >> Ian Forrester >> >> This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable >> >> Senior Producer, BBC Backstage >> BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP >> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> work: +44 (0)2080083965 >> mob: +44 (0)7711913293 >> >> - >> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please >> visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >> Unofficial list archive: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ >> > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
I would still agree though, despite the stream of valid points about the BBC who shouldn't have used flash. I still agree that now they have, to get themselves out of such a nasty situation, considering funding gnash development so it can run on set top boxes, phones etc. is not a bad idea. obviously some pople diagree with me. On 04/03/2008, Adam Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope the BBC does not spend licence fee money on the development of > Gnash. This money should be spent to benefit the majority of the > license payers, not just a very small group. > > I'm sure once Gnash has got the capability to run the flash used on the > BBC website they will happily support it. -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] One-day Conference To Help Web Developers Address Accessibility in Web 2.0
On 05/03/2008, Andy Halsall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only thing I would take issue with is that at £150.00 (plus travel and > accomodation) this will be out of reach for the group that would benefit from > it most. (i.e. small web design company's, freelancers etc.. students... (yes, £90 *is* a lot for a student if you add it to travel and accomodation) I couldn't agree more. -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 22:32:02 Adam Leach wrote: ... > I hope the BBC does not spend licence fee money on the development of > Gnash. This money should be spent to benefit the majority of the > license payers, not just a very small group. Your point of targeting licence fee money to benefit the majority of license fee payers rather than small groups is a very common one. (However, it's not universal - think "minority" programming - for example. Sky at Night :) I don't think that's the question raised. The question I think you're raising there is _will_ it benefit the majority of license fee payers? I'm trying below to _not base_ my post on personal beliefs of right and wrong. That basis isn't testable, measurable and repeatable and is subject to debate and flame wars (as well as real world laws). I'll leave arguments based on belief to others. I'll just ask some questions. However, based on raw numbers of Gnash users right now the answer is clearly not - Gnash users are not a majority - which is presumably what you were referring to. That said, that's only one metric. There are others, and furthermore there are more possibilities here than just "who uses what platform right now". I'm going to base it on the following observation: * Many IETF standards (among others) start off in the following way: * Someone implements something. * Someone else implements something compatible (either due to reverse engineering, or based on an informational RFC or other source) * After significant amounts of faffing around, due to the existance of multiple implementations and common consensus, that thing can become a standard. Now, ignoring the faffing around part which I did note can be quite significant (as well as incidental, but there is often faff)... The next observation is that flash is very much a defacto standard at present with a fair few incomplete reimplementations (gnash is one, there are others). That leads me to wonder the following: 1 If Gnash, or any other implementation, reaches the stage of compatibility with Adobe's implementation, then it will reach the "multiple implementations" criteria required by various standards groups. Would there be a measurable, testable benefit to users at that stage? 2 It it did, would Adobe be interested in standardising Flash? I can see various good business reasons in favour of this, but given they are very much in a dominant position there at present, I can see lots of good business reasons for them not to do this _at present_ . 3 Would it be beneficial to the majority of license fee payers to have a standards based inbrowser virtual machine in the form of a flash compatible engine - especially if it was extensible to support more video codecs by default? (Something pretty doable if its an open system since you can define an appropriate interface) Two examples here are SMPTE VC1 and VC2. Given open standards are generally a good thing for consumers, based on significant amounts of evidence (rather than just personal beliefs of right and wrong) in the past, is it reasonable to assume "yes" to the question in 3) above? That's where we enter belief since we hit a value judgement based on past evidence. Based on past evidence of the benefits of open standards and the fact that flash is very heavily used, I would personally say the balance of evidence suggests that it would be a good idea. However that's personal judgement. Regarding 2) - would it happen? Realistically, it requires common consensus, which would HAVE to include Adobe. Do I think they're ready? No idea - there's mixed signals coming from them. They have standardised PDF in the past though, so maybe. So again at this point we again hit value judgement. I did put a view here, but I think it's more interesting if I don't. Also, I feel it's less testable, or measurable, making it much less supportable opinion. My *guess* is not soon, but not suprised if they did. If it is viewed as beneficial in 3) and that my guess is right in 2) that Adobe wouldn't standardise until there was a complete competing implementation, then we come to 1). So now we come to 1). Out of all the implementations out there which exist to varying degrees of completeness, why support any particular reimplementation? Again, I can't answer that, but I can put some observations. It's possible after all that completeness of implementation won't lead to widespread uptake. After all, most users already have an installed version, and have little incentive to upgrade, unless they percieve a practical immediate benefit. (eg access to content or functionality) That IMO requires something more than "just" reimplementation. You'll note I'm not choosing any particular reimplementation of flash. I can't see any specific benefits of one over any other at present - other than feature completeness of reimplementation (which as
Re: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future?
Thanks to everyone who answered, some really interesting thoughts for DMI and other advanced prototypes. I'm presenting your ideas on Friday, so this is what I have across two slides In-programme timing of generic objects or people Access to the Edit logs of programme makers Access to the scripts with timings TV schedules as a API with past and future ability Direct links to iplayer programmes XML of upcoming iplayer programmes XML of programmes about to drop off iplayer (see Matthews prototype next slide) Links between programmes and their programme catalogue entry The Programme Catalogue and synced with DBpedia A reference page or service for all programmes (/programmes in XML) Small image/icon per programme with the rights cleared XML or pub/sub messages for upcoming and favourite programmes Ability to link BBC identity with favourite programmes Keywords, Tags and Search across them and other data Access to Subtitle data in XML Videos in alternative formats Wmv, Theora, Dirac, etc I'm going to spend at least 25% of my presentation on these points alone. Who knows maybe they will sink in and we might get some traction in certain areas. Cheers, Ian Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, I was hoping to get a brainstorm of ideas for APIs and Feeds you would love to play with in the near future, while focusing on Vision/TV I got most of the obvious stuff like, - A 31 day schedule in XML - TV schedules as a API with past and future ability - Direct links to iplayer programmes - XML/RSS/ATOM/JSON of upcoming iplayer programmes - XML/RSS/ATOM/JSON of programmes about to drop off iplayer - Links between programmes and their programme catalogue entry - The Programme Catalogue! :) - A reference page or service for all programmes (/programmes in XML) - XMPP pub/sub messages for upcoming programmes - keywords Anything more? Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the freedom of software users being compromised. That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is counter-productive precisely because it supports something that isn't an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was an open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could provide such a standard that would be really positive. - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future?
Mr I Forrester wrote: I like the idea of this, hard sell but who knows maybe a prototype could bring this to life. It might be nice to see something like the BBC Annotatable Audio project that the BBC Radio & Music Interactive R&D team worked on back in 2005, but on the iPlayer stream. e.g. a prototype could see a greasemonkey script which paused the video (if possible) and allowed the viewer to add a text annotation (and UUID reference if available) to what was happening on screen. Tom Coates posted some screenshots and video for how Annotatable Audio worked: http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/10/on_the_bbc_annotatable_audio_project/ I guess I'm talking about something like Annodex, but for iPlayer content. http://www.annodex.net/ Phil - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future?
How about an Air app that allows one to edit the DMI metadata in a web browser. If there were a published BBC metadata schema we could do this outside the BBC; as it is it would need to be an internal effort. On 05/03/2008 06:38, "Chris Sizemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > any BBC DMI guys lurking on the list? Rupert Watson www.root6.com +44 7787 554 801 ROOT 6 LIMITED Registered in the UK at 4 WARDOUR MEWS, LONDON W1F 8AJ Company No. 03433253 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future?
I like the idea of this, hard sell but who knows maybe a prototype could bring this to life. David Greaves wrote: Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, I was hoping to get a brainstorm of ideas for APIs and Feeds you would love to play with in the near future, while focusing on Vision/TV I got most of the obvious stuff like, - A reference page or service for all programmes (/programmes in XML) - keywords Anything more? I'm not sure of the scope of the above points... Given concepts like crossover and product placement it may be worth looking at in-program timing of generic 'objects'. eg: 25:00-26:23 Music: Band:Ah-ha Track:Take On Me Album:... 25:00-26:23 Actor: Bruce Lee Character: Benny 25:00-26:23 Product: Coca Cola 25:00-26:23 Actual Location : Slough GPS-coords:39729358734652 25:00-26:23 Fictional Location : Monaco for *that* famous scene :) This does not need to be commercial - I could see it being used to identify concepts in educational material too. Who does this? Well, collaborative approaches could be used (FreeDB/CDDB worked), some companies would provide product/media info (would need guidelines), some programme makers would find it added value (education) - heck maybe an actor's agent would provide the data as part of the service (or the actor themselves if they were on the 'bronze' package ;) ) Clearly this works when it's about providing meta-information rather than links to a page. Those come from the apps using the meta-data. Tied to this (and many of the other points raised) would be a UUID system for uniquely identifying objects, resolving duplicates and possibly establishing relationships. Clearly one or two minor issues to resolve but... David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is it just me, or is some stereo audio on BBC chans (Freeview) out of phase?
Christopher Woods wrote: Not used my USB Freeview receiver for a while, hooked it up because I dug out an amplified aerial and thought 'heck, why not.' In essense, audio seems to be varying degrees out of phase - measurably 90 degrees out of phase on BBC Three and N24. I observed this phenomenon tonight on BBC Three, BBCs One and Two but most noticeable on News 24. Speech is fine (which is generally monaural, so yeah) and on other channels it's a bit noticeable in places, but it's most obvious on N24 and BBC Three where there's stereo music... The top of the hour buffer (with the countdown) on News 24 is totally out of phase for its duration. Can you give an exact channel, date and time when you observed the phenomenon? (03:59 GMT last night on N24, perhaps?) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future?
Yes awesome Matthew! Phil Wilson wrote: I knocked up a little unsophisticated something: http://www.dracos.co.uk/play/bbc-iplayer-quick/ :-) This is ace, thanks Matthew. Phil - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What would you love to see coming out of BBC Vision in the near future?
Yes I see the "odd" one out :) Tim Dobson wrote: Ian Forrester wrote: I was hoping to get a brainstorm of ideas for APIs and Feeds you would love to play with in the near future, while focusing on Vision/TV After Barcamp I think there are a few ideas in a more generally direction, not just about feeds and API's... Anything more? - Free Software Orientated Stuff - Open Standards Orientated Stuff - Freely Licenced Stuff - Stuff that works Up North - Stuff that I need Vista + Digital Restrictions Management(DRM) to use See if you can spot the one I put in to test whether you were awake :P Bet you could see those coming ;) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
> If only people would make real-world, rational and pragmatic arguments > about FOSS then this adversarial stuff would be less strident. > > The argument (IMO) should be about the use of an open standard, not Adobe > vs Gnash. I agree totally, this cannot be emphasised enough. > > If your OS/device/whatever can't do published standards then tough. > OTO if the BBC supports and promotes proprietary standards (cf Microsoft > OOXML) then that's more of an issue. > Especially with @10% (and rising) of BBC traffic coming from non "Windows PC" type platforms. The interesting thing here is that clearly mobile devices and set top boxes are increasingly being used to view multimedia content online (and offline for that matter), yet media solutions (especially those where DRM is a key consideration) are geared very much toward Windows PC's. The BBC would do well to provide a platform agnostic, well documented and standardised solution to media distribution. > I think that *that* is the reason that the BBC have a duty to > counterbalance their support for Adobe/Flash with support for more open > alternatives. Again, this cannot be emphasised enough. Andy Halsall. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
RE: [backstage] New concept to solve last-mile broadband: walk yourself over to a video ATM
> As I understand it, their idea is that you buy their > proprietary USB-based key, walk over to their kiosk, select > and download a film in under a minute, bring it home, dump it > into the computer via standard USB the time it takes, then > watch it on Windows or in a purchased branded set-top box. Failed before it ever started - if I have to leave my seat, I'll never use it. They could give me diamonds and pearls and only by dumping a pile of £50 into my lap would they get me off of my nice, warm settee to head over to this thing! - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
As an ardent FOSS supporter : "Well said" :) [really - no sarcasm] If only people would make real-world, rational and pragmatic arguments about FOSS then this adversarial stuff would be less strident. The argument (IMO) should be about the use of an open standard, not Adobe vs Gnash. If your OS/device/whatever can't do published standards then tough. OTO if the BBC supports and promotes proprietary standards (cf Microsoft OOXML) then that's more of an issue. In that case I think the BBC (and any organisation capable of reviewing the behaviour of vendors for the past 15 years) would be well advised to consider the competitive landscape. Vendor lock-in is a well understood strategy that provides little, if any, benefit to the purchasing organisation in the medium/long term. Only if failure is expected does planning for the long-term makes no senses. I know (and care) little about "Chief Systems" - however the story is reasonable. The BBC are providing a service that Adobe has a veto over - they (Adobe) can *prevent* entrepreneurs from starting up with linux-based devices. (Tivo anyone?) I think that *that* is the reason that the BBC have a duty to counterbalance their support for Adobe/Flash with support for more open alternatives. Dave's argument would (IMHO) have been better phrased in these terms than by asking for a hand-out. David Richard Lockwood wrote: > Quite. I seem to remember Mr Crossland arguing vehemently when the > iPlayer beta came out that the BBC shouldn't be spending money on it > because it didn't benefit all users. > > Pot, kettle, etc. > > Rich. > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Adam Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I hope the BBC does not spend licence fee money on the development of >> Gnash. This money should be spent to benefit the majority of the >> license payers, not just a very small group. >> >> I'm sure once Gnash has got the capability to run the flash used on the >> BBC website they will happily support it. >> >> Adam >> >> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 22:19 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> It seems Gnash is attracting a lot of funding and direct support these >>> days... >>> >>> When will the BBC support access to the Flash-based parts of its >>> websites with free software by helping the Gnash project? >>> >>> -- Forwarded message -- >>> From: James Northcott / Chief Systems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: 4 Mar 2008 21:45 >>> Subject: [Gnash-dev] Gnash, Flash, Adobe, and cash >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> My business partners and I are currently working on a Linux-based >>> application that requires Flash playback. >>> >>> Adobe has specifically excluded our application from bundling a Flash >>> player under the terms of their free distribution license, and our >>> efforts to negotiate some sort of paid licensing agreement have >>> stalled. At this point, we are looking for alternatives, and it would >>> seem that helping Gnash would be a viable option for us. >>> >>> This leads me to ask the following questions: >>> >>> 1. What is stopping the Gnash team from fully implementing the >>> Flash 9 file format? Where could we help the most? >>> >>> I understand there are some legal issues with those who have agreed >>> to the Adobe EULA making contributions to Gnash. I'm also sure that >>> there are manpower issues, as well as funding issues. I would >>> appreciate someone taking the time to explain where the largest issues >>> lie. We have some programming resources available, although we have >>> no experience with the Gnash codebase at all, as well as a potentially >>> large number of sample Flash movies that play correctly in the Adobe >>> player but not in Gnash. >>> >>> 2. What kind of monetary investment would be necessary to >>> significantly speed up Gnash development? >>> >>> I realize that this may be a difficult question to answer, but we are >>> quite serious. We were prepared to pay Adobe to license their player, >>> but this seems to have hit a dead end - could our contribution to >>> Gnash help speed up development, and if so, how large a contribution >>> would be required to overcome the blockers for Flash 9 support? >>> >>> We understand the open source model, and we are not interested in >>> owning the copyright or changing the license of the Gnash code. We >>> are simply willing to pay to get Flash 9 playback in our product, if >>> this ends up being within our budget. >>> >>> I appreciate any feedback you have for me. >>> >>> James >>> >>> > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/b
