|
The Digital Media Project |
|||
|
Source |
L. Chiariglione |
Date |
2004/02/20 |
|
Title |
The DMP work plan |
No. |
0035/Heidelberg |
The DMP work plan
Disclaimer: This is the first draft of the DMP work plan developed at the first DMP meeting. It is likely to undergo several revisions before reaching stability and completeness.
1. Introduction
The Digital Media Manifesto (DMM) was motivated by the realisation that while great digital technologies exist their application to media leads to results that are satisfactory to all value-chain users in a reduced number of cases, particularly those in which digital technologies are used a simple replacement of the corresponding analogue technologies.
Other usages of digital technologies are problematic because users can do things that were not possible or difficult or cumbersome with analogue technologies. While these limitations were the enabling factors of many value-chain businesses, some of the possibilities offered by digital technologies can be a cause of considerable economic harm for those businesses. Very often for these new things there is no law, regulation or court case that can guide those who want to exploit the new opportunities. If there are, application may be itself a matter of contention.
This situation is the main cause of what the DMM calls the “digital media stalemate”: the existence of great opportunities to many value-chain users and the virtual impossibility to exploit many of them. The DMM identifies seven major actions that must be undertaken to unleash the potential of digital media technologies.
The Digital Media Project (DMP) is an international organisation set up with the purpose of executing the actions advocated by the DMM.
The first DMP action addresses the issue of what users can and may do. Some users take the attitude that things that were allowed in the analogue domain should continue to be allowed in the digital domain as well. Others take the attitude that what can be done in the digital domain is “new” and therefore should be rediscussed. The DMP take neither and both of these attitudes at the same time Instead it utilises the process described in the following paragraph.
2. The seven-step DMP process
The process is described here because a large part of the DMP work plan is an implementation of the process.
3. 4. The DMP Work Items
The DMP will produce different types of Approved Documents (AD)
Technical Specifications (TS)
Recommended Practices (RP)
Recommended Actions (RA).
The DMM identifies policy actions such as Phasing out Analogues Legacies (PAL), Deployment of Broadband Access (DBA) and Development of and Access to Standards (DAS). The DMP will produce RAs on these actions as well.
In addition to the IDP and IED TSs above the DMP intends to address objectives within a shorter time frame, because there are some urgent market needs and there is expectation that some IEDs will have looser connections with the rest of the IDP. These IEDs, called IED-s must fit in the full IED (IED-f) TSs, possibly as reduced-functionality profiles. These TSs should also include the necessary conformance RPs.
|
WI |
Output |
Object |
Development tools |
Acr-onym |
Begin |
End |
#WD |
|
1. |
RA |
Traditional Rights and Usages |
RQs & CfC |
TRU |
04/02 |
05/04 |
3 |
|
2. |
RA |
Phasing out Analogue Legacies |
CfC |
PAL |
04/10 |
05/10 |
2 |
|
3. |
RA |
Deployment of Broadband Access |
CfC |
DBA |
04/04 |
05/04 |
2 |
|
4. |
RA |
Development of and Access to Standards |
CfC |
DAS |
04/02 |
05/04 |
2 |
|
5. |
TS |
Interoperable DRM Platform |
RQs & CfP |
IDP |
04/07 |
05/10 |
3 |
|
6. |
TS |
Interoperable End-user Devices (short) |
RQs & CfP |
IED-s |
04/04 |
05/04 |
2 |
|
7. |
TS |
Interoperable End-user Devices (full) |
RQs & CfP |
IED-f |
04/07 |
05/10 |
3 |
|
8. |
RP |
End-to-End Conformance |
IDP & IED-f TSs |
EEC |
05/04 |
06/07 |
3 |
4. The DMP Timeline
|
|
GA# |
GA01 |
GA02 |
GA03 |
GA04 |
GA05 |
GA06 |
GA07 |
GA08 |
GA09 |
GA10 |
GA11 |
|
date |
04/02 |
04/04 |
04/07 |
04/10 |
05/01 |
05/04 |
05/07 |
05/10 |
06/01 |
06/04 |
06/07 |
|
|
1 |
TRU |
RQ |
CfC |
WD1 |
WD2 |
WD3 |
RA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
PAL |
- |
- |
- |
RQ |
CfC |
WD1 |
WD2 |
RA |
|
|
|
|
3 |
DBA |
- |
RQ |
CfC |
WD1 |
WD2 |
RA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
DAS |
- |
RQ |
CfC |
WD1 |
WD2 |
RA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
IDP |
- |
- |
RQ |
CfP |
WD1 |
WD2 |
WD3 |
TS |
|
|
|
|
6 |
IED-s |
- |
RQ |
CfP |
WD1 |
WD2 |
TS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
IED-f |
- |
- |
RQ |
CfP |
WD1 |
WD2 |
WD3 |
TS |
|
|
|
|
8 |
EEC |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
RQ |
CfP |
WD1 |
WD2 |
WD3 |
RP |
5. Interdependencies
TRU generates RQ for IDP and IED-f
IED-s must be congruous with IED-f
IDP, IED-f (and possibly EEC) will influence PAL
IDP, IED-f (and possibly EEC) will influence DBA
EEC is derived from IDP and IED-f
IDP, IED-f and EEC, when completed, may further impact TRU RA
|
CfC: |
|
Call for Contributions |
|
CfP: |
|
Call for Proposals |
|
RQ: |
|
Requirements |
|
RA: |
|
Recommended Actions |
|
RP: |
|
Recommended Practices |
|
TS: |
|
Technical Specification |
|
WD |
|
Working Draft |