Comments on DRAFT AES60-xxxx

last updated 2011-08-10

PAGE 3, SUPPLEMENTARY. Click here to access main page for comments on this document.
NOTE Individual comments have been numbered in this transcription to simplify cross-referencing.


Reply from C. Chambers, chair of SC-03-07, 2011-07-08,
to comments received from Mr. I. Rudd, 2011-06-17

Hi Ian,
Thanks very much for your comments. I have attached a document with my reply to your points.
Mark will cover the editorial points.
I hope it is all clear but do let me know if there is anything arising from this.
Regards, Chris

Item Comment
General comments:

1 The document claims to be based on EBU Tech 3293-2008 (see Page 1, Abstract, Paragraph 2). Alas, the EBU updated Tech 3293 in October, 2010 (to v1.2). However even though Annex E cites Tech 3293 v1.2 and Annex G appears, at a cursory glance, to reflect that update, the assertion in the Abstract is not just an oversight, for there are further problems elsewhere in the document, such as Page 7, Section 4.1.4.2.2 and Page 9, Section 4.2.1.1(see specific comments below). Therefore, there needs to be a detailed review to ensure that this document reflects the current status of Tech 3293. Having found several such problems, I did not analyse the document further for them, but I leave it to the Committee to resolve all such discrepancies throughout the document.
True, it was intended to be. The AES needs to base its documents on stable sources as far as possible. Particularly during necessarily extended and widely consultative process involved in the production of the first version. We will be starting an update process in time for the New York convention to bring AES60 in line with the latest EBU version and any other changes required. If we did not take this approach, we could be in danger of never getting new standards out of the door, partially when based on continuing external work.

2 I also found a missing Normative Reference (W3C Date and Time Format) and so the document will also need to be checked for any other citations of what ought to be Normative References.)
Date and time format was intended to be seen as Reference data and therefore informational, not normative.

Specific comments:
8 Page 5 Section 2: ISO 15836: 2009 The document is here (payment required to obtain it): http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm? csnumber=52142
(and other URL comments)
Our approach is to indentify the publisher and the particular document but not necessarily provide specific URLs unless it is under our control. The reason for this is that in our experience, URL?s and access conditions (like licensing and payments) often change quite quickly making our standards documents unstable and may bypass the publishers terms and conditions. While a valid URL is very convenient while it works, it may not be at all helpful when it does not. Having the information to be able to search the publisher?s site seems to provide the best future proof approach and should cover all the eventualities mentioned.

9 XML schema: I suggest refining the link to: http://www.w3.org/standards/xml/schema
See reply to item 8

10 Namespaces in XML: I suggest refining the link to: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/
See reply to item 8

11 Normative Reference missing (it's currently in the Informative links of Annex F): W3C Date and Time Format, cited in Section 4.2.14.1 (at least). http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
See reply to item 8

12 I suggest that the Normative References to RFCs 2045 and 3339 should point to: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339 respectively.
See reply to item 8

13 Page 6 Section 4.1.2: Because we are being offered an general example and because the numbers of the sub-sections need not have the value "1", "n.1.1.1" should be "n.m.o.p" - or perhaps better, "a.b.c.d".
We have no strong views on this but are happy as it is.

20 Attributes startYear, endYear, startTime and endTime are missing. (They weren't present in Tech 3293 v1.1, but they are in v1.2 and see (e.g.) Sections 4.2.1.2.2 and particularly 4.2.7.6 and Annex G, at the bottom of page 84 in this (AES CFC document).)
True, but see the reply to your general comments apply. We propose that this will be addressed in the update process due to start this autumn.

23 Page 9 Section 4.2.1.1 Definition Last paragraph: "If present, the startDate [...] in the date attribute ..." The EBUCore refers to the attributionDate attribute and the AES Core has the attributionDate attribute (see Annex F, mid-way down Page 59). The text here needs to be updated to reflect EBUCore v1.2, the citation of Annex E and the list in Annex G.
I think this may be addressed in the update process, but I would like a little more information on this point for clarity.
24 [No further analysis here of AES Core vs. EBUCore discrepancies - see General Comment. However, further work is needed to bring this document into agreement with Tech 3293 v1.2, rather than v1.1.]
Again, see the proposal on starting the update process in the next couple of months.

31 "EBU Metadata": Given the text of the - out-of-date - link, I suggest: "EBU Metadata Specifications: http://tech.ebu.ch/MetadataSpecifications"
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

32 EBU Metadata News: Given the text of the - broken - link, I suggest: http://tech.ebu.ch/metadata
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

33 PBCore: This link now redirects to: http://pbcore.org/
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

35 ISO 639: This link points to the Registration Authority for ISO 639, which could be a useful link to have too, but ISO 639-2: 1988 (as in the existing, Library Of Congress, link) itself is here (payment required to obtain it): http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm? csnumber=4767 NB The link needs to follow the organisation's name (and location, if used).
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

36 ISO 3166-1: 2006: The document is here (payment required to obtain it): http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm? csnumber=39719
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

37 ISO 4217: 2008: The document is here (payment required to obtain it): http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm? csnumber=46121
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

38 ISO 8601: 2004: The document is here (payment required to obtain it): http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm? csnumber=40874
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

39 IETF RFC 2326: The document is here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2326
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

40 IETF RFC 3066: The document is here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3066
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

44 SMPTE 12 and 330: The SMPTE has changed the way it names its standards; see: http://www.smpte.org/standards/renumbering SMPTE ST 0012 is in two parts (payment required to obtain both of them): http://store.smpte.org/product-p/st%200012-1-2008.htm and http://store.smpte.org/product-p/st%200012-2-2008.htm SMPTE ST 0330 is here (payment required to obtain it): http://store.smpte.org/product-p/st%200330-2004.htm
See reply to item 8. Will correct bibliography at the time of publication

[Ends] Ian Rudd June, 2011.

I do hope that this reply helps in covering you comments. Mark will be covering all the editorial matters you have raised. Many thanks,

Chris Chambers (Chair)

Back to top
 
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   Google+   YouTube   RSS News Feeds  
AES - Audio Engineering Society