Hi Rubén,
> 1) How do we deal with the fact that several "versions" of the same
> MediaPackage can be distributed to the same distribution channel? For
> instance, I'm thinking of one Youtube video with just the slides (and the
> sound) and another with just the teacher. Or one with the slides and the
> sound and another with a composition of the camera and the slides. Will we
> have, then, two (or more) "presentation" elements?
That's the idea. We thought about introducing sub-representations but then
decided to keep it as simple as possible. The distribution channel is able to
store what was distributed in the <dict> part of the element, so it is easier
to retract. In addition, there will still be the "type" element containing the
flavors, so this could be used to indicate the distributed content as well.
> 2) I don't like the name "presentations", because it may be confusing with
> the term "presentation", often used to refer to the PowerPoint presentation
> ("slides") used in a recording. Due to the lack of a better term, I'd suggest
> "distribution", which in the end is the term used to describe what this new
> MediaPackage item is for. I'm not very sure about this last name, but I do
> think it's more accurate and less confusing than the proposed "presentations".
I agree and disagree as we were discussing presentation vs. distribution as
well. The reason for sticking with "presentation" in the proposal was that
distributing a file (e. g. to the download server) is different from presenting
it (e. g. on a video portal or in feeds). In fact, multiple representations may
be based on the same distribution.
> 3) I have just realized of the "channel" argument in the second example given
> by Tobias. Shouldn't we make a difference between elements distributed as
> "downloads" and as "streaming"? In that case, "engage" would be an ambiguous
> term, and we should specify 'channel="engage-download"' or
> 'channel="engage-streaming"' (or, at least, 'channel="download"' or
> 'channel="streaming"'). I know those are mere examples, and not "real" pieces
> of xml, but I think it's good to point this out and make it clear.
Again, the presentations should be differentiated from the file distribution.
If this proposal is accepted, it would probably be up to the presentation
services (e. g the search service aka engage) to use the distribution services
to place the files rather than the workflow randomly throwing files onto the
download server. Every presentation instance would need to make sure that the
files or streams they are representing is in the right place (and removed if
retracted). So as a result, distribution would be a responsability of each
presentation channel.
Tobias
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
Matterhorn@opencastproject.org
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
matterhorn-unsubscr...@opencastproject.org
_______________________________________________
