X-Sender: maryfran@mail.sura.org Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:54:23 -0400 To: pbs-demo@thequilt.net From: Mary Fran Yafchak Subject: Notes from 10/11 PBS-Quilt call Cc: Mary Fran Yafchak Status: Dear all, Below are some notes from our PBS-Quilt project idea call held last Friday. We had some good preliminary information exchange among those present and agreed that we would continue the discussion this Friday, October 18, 12 - 1 EDT. All PBS-demo folks are welcome to join Friday's call but we do need to know how many ahead of time. ** Please let me know if you are planning to attend **. I will send dial info closer to the meeting. Note on the notes: Sorry but these are very long and resemble a blow-by-blow account of the discussion. They were not intended to be that. It was just how I happened to take notes that day and I don't have today to summarize <:-). So please just be glad this time that you can relive the experience or feel like you were there if you weren't ;-). I'm also sure that I paraphrased freely and left some things out. Please feel free to send necessary corrections or additions to the list. Thanks, -mfy Attendees: Larry Flournoy, TAMU Dennis Haarsager, Wash State & CPB Steve Shroeder, PSU Jeff Ogden, MERIT Mary Fran Yafchak, SURA Tony Conto, MAX Don Riley, UMD Tim Reilly, PBS Jim Kutzner, PBS Tom Edwards, PBS Jim K. start us off... PBS is moving ahead with project plans as discussed a year ago. A high level description is that they intend to replace their (real-time, 24x7) interconnection system that goes from PBS to all (approx. 180) PBS stations. How best to fit I2 into that? They are struggling with recognizing the increasing bandwidth available and marrying that with the firm interconnection requirements. Few-to-many is the main thrust though they sometimes needs point-to-point in order to exchange rich media between stations. Current work is how to mold these together and make it cost-effective. Further down the road, as rebuilding happens within the network, they may look at terrestrial again but, for now, had to move ahead with satellite. MFY - Re-introduced idea of "moving up the stack" - think about connections but then what's above that (moving, securing, finding, maybe repurposing content). Jim K. agreed - He thinks of progress in terms of the layers that need to be addressed. In a practical enterprise, need to separate these layers in order to manage them. Larry F. - Is PBS still interested in doing a demo project? Jim K. - Yes! But wants it to be "real", to demonstrate to stations, CEOs, potential funders what can really be done and is valuable. Jeff O. - Couple different paths to explore. 1) Maybe I2 facilities can replace some of satellite system - how to increase these opportunities? 2) Transform how business is done in addition to delivering media - more radical, more interesting. Jim K. - First idea is worthwhile; more specific example for the second? Jeff O. - Can people get new types of access (i.e., on-demand)? Is PBS in the business of "delivering things" or in the business of creating content and enabling access? Is I2 a new avenue for the delivery of that content? Jim K. - PBS is not traditionally in the on-demand business but interested. Dennis H. - There is lots of interest within the PBS station community for on-demand, though sometimes legal issues get in the way. Lots of stations are doing it with their own content. PBS content is historically more difficult in terms of rights. MFY - Are the rights knowable and if the technology reflected those rights then it would be O.K. to move ahead? Or are there other complications? Jim K. - Rights have to be understood by technology folks and they need to factor that into tech plans. For purposes of this group's discussions, we could assume that the rights issues outside of technical implementation would be figured out by someone else. MFY - And we could maybe move ahead from there? Dennis H. - Much of PBS's historical material is not cleared for Internet use. Future material may be easier to work with. Could follow-up to see what sort of rights are being negotiated today and see if they are inclusive of the Internet. Larry F noted that Internet2 and gigaPoP community is not the same as "the Internet". Dennis H. - True and that could make things easier. Maybe there are ways to ensure different access and access would be "limited" - less than the whole commodity Internet. Could content go to/through an I2 member and then to the commodity net from there? Jeff O. - So far, sees the following things to talk about: transport projects, and content delivery. If the latter - how to approach it? Proceed with content where the rights are not problematic and use this to convince folks that the other rights issues are worth figuring out. K-12 is desparate for content that people can use. I2 is largely to/from well-connected schools and what could be done on the commodity Internet may not be up to par with what could be done here. This community is not the public, but it's a very large and interesting group. Larry F - There is a tremendous distributed market among schools for using PBS content; education is one of the largest user sectors. The Texas gigaPoP has two PBS stations on directly owned fiber that he would like to get involved in this. MFY - Can we clarify usage? Is it just receiving or is it interacting, repurposing, learning objects? Larry F - Several levels - use in passive watching mode, use in served ["local", on-demand] mode, re-use for student work, and teacher development of learning objects. MFY emphasized that work with repurposing and development of learning objects could enable a project to be truly transformative in terms of its impact. Dennis H - This leads us to a good time to talk about some projects that have already been done. - Rich Media Project at UWISC [description attached], led by Brian Knight [just added to this listserv - Welcome, Brian!] - Working w/3 potential vendors to store video assets at a controlled location (by the vendor), with proxy's created there, permitting manipulation of learning objects, development of new PBS content, etc. Partners are all I2 members. I2 would be the transport. One partner is working with MAX to connect. - Development of data dictionary - Dublin core based. [MFY note: I believe this is the URL that I sent to the list a bit ago. Dennis - please send a better one if I'm wrong: http://www.utah.edu/cpbmetadata/index.html] MFY asked all of the quiet people :-) what they thought of the discussion thus far. Tony Conto - MAX is already active as noted. Demonstration projects we might do that create learning objects that can be used on a campus has straight-forward interest for them (Journalism school, for instance). Meta-data project is also interesteing but sounds like it's on its way already. Larry F - TAMU has a large digital library project (for Bush Library, among other things) and also several imagery digital library projects. A number of their projects could synergize along with something like this. MFY - Asking Dennis - how can/should this group get involved with the existing projects? Dennis H. - Meta-data project is well along - maybe 75% there - a liaison from this group to that project makes sense. The RMU is currently caught up in a budget freeze of the Futures Fund. The project could be expanded outside of PBS and within the I2 community. Video asset cataloging is the main thrust. Jim K. - Would like to decide on which projects would be short term but can demonstrate how the project could be expanded or continued in the future as well as look at a some long-term or sustaining projects, for instance his earlier suggestion to incorporate real-time HDTV feed into existing PBS distribution. Also wants to think about how to separate the layers in terms of the mechanisms required to handle each and develop projects that way. Longer term projects would need to become part of someone's business in order to be sustainable. Discussion of timetables for doing any sort of project followed, resulting in general agreement that we will target a project that can be showcased by the Spring, perhaps tying in presence at a few key conferences - I2, NAB, Net2003. It was noted that this would be good for vendor involvement and also for visibility with political decision-makers. Don R. also added that we should get a status check on Research TV. One of their goals to serve as a testbed for uncompressed digital media, another is to publicize what Universities do in their research - broadcast and re-broadcast of University research programming. We might be able to form a project that is less about PBS content going out and more about the University community getting their content onto PBS. At this point, our hour was up and all agreed that we should continue the discussion on the list (send your project ideas!!!!) and then again next Friday. Whew! -mfy -- ************************************************************ Mary Fran Yafchak IT Program Coordinator SURA (Southeastern Universities Research Association) http://www.sura.org "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it" A. Einstein. ************************************************************