Another call for proposal on missing parts such as haptic, tactile, emotions, and so on.
28Avatar Information (23005-4)
28.1Topics
28.1.1ISO/IEC 23005-4 Avatar Information
28.2Contributions
Session
Number
Title
Source
MPEG-V
m16425
Avatar Characteristics
Blagica Jovanova
Marius Preda
Françoise Preteux
MPEG-V
m16483
Avatar Definition Markup Language
David Oyarzun
Jean H.A. Gelissen (editor)
m16425 & m16483 reviewed by 3DG. Accepted for WD. Agreed to have further harmonization.
28.3Action Points
29MXM (23006 & 29116-1)
29.1Topics
29.1.1ISO/IEC 23006-1 MXM Architecture
29.1.2ISO/IEC 23006-2 API
29.1.3ISO/IEC 23006-3 Conf. and Ref. SW
29.1.4ISO/IEC 29116-1 2nd edition MXM Protocols
29.2Contributions
Session
Number
Title
Source
MXM
m16447
Proposal for using the existing tools for generic metadata APIs of metadata engine on MXM APIs
Wonsuk Lee
Seungyun Lee
MXM
m16348
Proposal for MXM engine and API of Presentation of Digital Item
Filippo Chiariglione
Tiejun Huang
MXM
m16308
Updated DIA APIs and Implementation for MXM
Christian Timmerer Michael Eberhard
MXM
m16427
Integrated MXM API for 3D Graphics
Ivica Arsov Marius Preda
MXM
m16455
A Proposal for Multimedia Application Interface for Collaborative Work
Sung Jin Hur
Wan Choi
MXM
m16457
Use Case of Multimedia Application Interface
Sung Jin Hur
Wan Choi
m16477:
Has been reviewed during the AhG meeting on Sunday and is reflected in the AhG report. See recommendation 5 of the AhG report.
In particular, WG11 will add to the native MPEG-7 API a generic API for media description supporting the set of tags that is common across a number of metadata sets that is being identified by W3C Media Annotation Working Group.
WG11 should be able to implement a significant subset of the generic API by the end of 2009.
WG11 should send a liaison statement to W3C communicating our intention to base the generic API on the work that W3C is doing and have a first implementation by the end of 2009.
m16348:
The input has been acknowledged by WG11 and WG11 is willing to include the proposed engines into the MXM standard.
However, the timeline proposed in 16344 lags MXM by one meeting. This means that the two proposed engines (i.e., engines for the Presentation of Digital Item (PDI) and Protection of Presentation element (PPE)) could not be part of the MXM standard. This is not an isolated case. Therefore, the three following possibilities can be considered:
Delay MXM FDIS by one meeting
Develop the two engines as reference software of the two proposed amendments
Add the two engines (and possibly other engines) to a new edition of MXM
