DSCA Avails WG August 6, 2019 with notes.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Access 2007 ® Use Databases How can Microsoft Access 2007 help you structure your database?
Advertisements

Microsoft ® Office Excel ® 2007 Training Get started with PivotTable ® reports [Your company name] presents:
WebCT CE-6 Assignment Tool. Assignment Tool and Assignment Drop Box Use “Assignment” button under Course Tools (your must be in “Build” mode) to: –Modify.
1 Agenda Views Pages Web Parts Navigation Office Wrap-Up.
Solutions Summit 2014 Discrepancy Processing & Resolution Terri Sullivan.
October 2003Bent Thomsen - FIT 3-21 IT – som værktøj Bent Thomsen Institut for Datalogi Aalborg Universitet.
1 Data List Spreadsheets or simple databases - a different use of Spreadsheets Bent Thomsen.
11 October 2015 MAVIS v “Sneak Preview”. 11 October 2015 Enhancements in the Release  Reference Material  Brief Accessioning View  Template.
Access 2007 ® Use Databases How can Microsoft Access 2007 help you structure your database?
21-07-xxxx IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: Title: Command Service Date Submitted: Month, NN, 200x Presented at IEEE.
Orders – Create Responses Boeing Supply Chain Platform (BSCP) Detailed Training July 2016.
Database Constraints Ashima Wadhwa. Database Constraints Database constraints are restrictions on the contents of the database or on database operations.
Core LIMS Training: Entering Experimental Data – Simple Data Entry.
Advanced Excel Helen Mills OME-RESA.
Hudson Fare Files 103 – Alternate Fare Files
1099 Pro Enterprise Edition Features
AP CSP: Cleaning Data & Creating Summary Tables
PantherSoft Financials Smart Internal Billing
Mail Merge for Lotus Notes and Excel User Guide
Resource Management / Acquisitions
GO! with Microsoft Office 2016
Using E-Business Suite Attachments
Practical Office 2007 Chapter 10
UPS – Tradeshift Supplier Training
Sourcing Event Tool Kit Multiline Sourcing, Market Baskets and Bundles
Required Data Files Review
SCC P2P – Collaboration Made Easy Contract Management training
Metadata Extraction Progress Report 12/14/2006.
LIS 384K.11 Database-Management Principles and Applications
22-INTEGRATION HUB
Request a Content Change for Novartis.com
GO! with Microsoft Access 2016
ESB Networks AIP Programme
Metadata Editor Introduction
Pentaho Reporting – Citrus edition
AIXM 5.1 – Interoperability issues
Program Management Portal (PgMP): Catalog and the Client
Reseller Option Kit (ROK)
Boeing Supply Chain Platform (BSCP) Detailed Training
Building Configurable Forms
Central Document Library Quick Reference User Guide View User Guide
Kodak Alaris Sales Information Library User Training
ECONOMETRICS ii – spring 2018
Audit Documentation and Administration
Create and Edit Item Records
Module 6: Preparing for RDA ...
Updating GML datasets S-100 WG TSM September 2017
AIXM 5.1 – Interoperability issues
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
Texas Student Data System
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
Create, Collaborate, Construct - A Guide to Projects
Automating Profitable Growth™
DA0492 BOM /Route Supersessions & Alts.
Avails1.7.4, XML 2.4 September 5, 2018.
Post WG LC NMDA datastore architecture draft
Media Manifest Core (MMC)
HP ALM Test Lab Module To protect the confidential and proprietary information included in this material, it may not be disclosed or provided to any third.
AIXM 5.1 – Interoperability issues
Bent Thomsen Institut for Datalogi Aalborg Universitet
Catalog Manager Standard Supplier Training.
Implementation of Learning Systems
WG standards for data access/exchange
IPP Job Storage 2.0: Fixing JPS2
Overview of The Bidder Response Form and Changes to the IT RFP Template March 8, 2019.
APE EAD3 introduction - DARIAH - Brussels
Purchase Document Management
API Working Group September 26, 2019 Includes notes from meeting.
Presentation transcript:

DSCA Avails WG August 6, 2019 with notes

Agenda Action items from last meeting Review Status and Bonus Tab Eric to work with WG in collecting data regarding potential issues with FE in practice, developing proposal more fully including sample use cases Craig to consider removing ‘Metadata’ as progress code from status reporting Craig to add Date Stamp to status reporting Craig to consider/report back on making ‘End’ date optional in status reporting Eric to coordinate discussion of issues re reporting wholesale price with WG members, report back in upcoming WG meeting Review Status and Bonus Tab Discus TPR (time permitting)

Avails New 'EntryType' Revised EntryType proposal [AI #1]

New 'EntryType' – Problem Space It is important that both parties (studios and retailers/platforms) agree on the “scope” of an Avails (i.e., what gets updated and what doesn’t). Otherwise, the platform might have the wrong data. Full Extract is one definition of scope: Content (via ALID and/or AltID), Business type (TVOD, SVOD, AVOD, etc.), Territory, and partners (studio/platform combination) But it is not the only possible scope, and the Full Extract model is not sufficient on its own New TPR and Bonus tabs will not work with Full Extract XML is much more flexible (work underway in API working group)

Proposal When no AvailID present, must use Full Extract, Full Delete model This eliminates the complex and questionable matching logic from the original proposal When AvailID present, can use Create, Delete, Update EntryType values These EntryType values that apply one “row” Update – Changes certain values of an existing Avail record Create – Adds one unique Avail record (cannot already exist) Delete – Removes one existing avail record All operations against AvalID For example, when performing an update, the record with the same AvailID is replaced AvailIDs are immutable When new EntryType values are accepted is a subject of Best Practices and bilateral agreements. Like not use for Avails Almost certain must be used for standalone Bonus and TPR tabs Note: Independent of this, recommend using AvailID as a regular practice Tentatively approved, pending better examples and time for review

New Values and Templates

New Templates Three topics that potentially require new Excel ‘templates’* Avails Status Bonus TPR For each of these Add a few new fields to the master spreadsheet—this is the critical part Define which fields are optional/required for each application Publish templates (like “Movies”, “TV” and “Collections” in 1.8) *A template is an excel tab constructed to demonstrate appropriate use of fields for a given use. Templates include “TV” and “Movie”. “Status”, “Bonus” and “TPR” templates would be added.

Status of new features Status and Bonus TPR Fields discussed at last meeting Discussed changes incorporated and will be discussed today (presentation attached) Template drafted TPR Still awaiting requirements; in particular, Merchandized TPRs and non-Merchandized TPRs (per Google presentation at BAM)

Status: Miscellaneous Date of report [AI #3] Issue: There is no way to know the date and time when status was determined. This has issues such as creating ambiguity between Ready and Live (might have been ready then, but live now) Solution: Added StatusEntryDate ISO date+time format (e.g., 2019-08-04T04:13:00Z) Do we want to suggest that the entire report have the same value, or allow flexibility? Recommendation: Flexibility (no sense start on the wrong foot) Agreement to allow unique date+time in each row, although there’s an expectation that all rows will likely be the same StatusEndDate [AI #4] Issue: No means to specify open end date Solution: Allow “Open” value in StatusEndDate Approved

Status: Remove Metadata Status value? [AI #2] Argument for removal Why differentiate metadata? If we go down this route, we could have numerous other categories (images, subs, dubs, etc.). Let’s keep it simple. If you need full status, use Asset Status object. Argument against removal Metadata is different : Used differently, produced by distinct parties, and has distinct timing This was part of DEG proposal—it was discussed and decided that studios need metadata status. Observations Maybe we want to simplify further to: Live, Ready, Blocked (e.g., SLA Violation), In-Process “Blocked” collapses Missing Content and Assets Rejected. It’s the only status that required action. Might want progress codes for multiple categories (Video, Audio, Metadata, Images, Dubs, Subs, etc.) Discussion: Keep as-is? Just remove “Metadata”? Simplify (e.g., “Metadata”, “Missing Content” and “Missing Assets”  “Blocked”)? Simplify and add categories? Proposal accepted: Live, Ready, Blocked (e.g., SLA Violation), In-Process

Status: Price [AI #5, partial] What price is reported back? Actual WSP (i.e., WSP retailer understands applies to the offer in that window)? Note that even if TPRs are reported in the first model below, status must always be unique rows (second model) Original Price TPR Price

Review Status Template (from Excel)

Review Bonus Template (from Excel)

Questions Can we just reuse LicenseType? Not sure why we previously concluded that bonus offer might have its own LicenseType Question deferred to next meeting

Discuss TPR Deferred to next meeting

Backup/Reference Material

Avails Bonus (XML) June 10, 2019

Delivering Bonus Content Problem Need ability to provide details about Bonus/VAM/EC to partners Feature to which bonus applies Identification of bonus titles Any licensing terms (e.g., date that doesn’t align with feature date) This information may come from organization distinct from Avails generation Currently solved with mostly-manual processes Solution Short Term: Avails-like (1.7.2 or later) spreadsheet with Bonus information This is a stopgap measure Long Term: MDDF (XML Avails, MMC, MEC, Status, API, etc.) accommodates this

Excel v1.9 requirements Added fields Added template Information to tie to original offer Bonus terms Bonus metadata Information to tie bonus offering to media files Added template Additional template illustrating usage (like movies, TV and collections)

New Terms Information to tie to original offer (new fields) Identification (matches Full Extract/Delete scope) ALID LicenseType Territory Conditions/Filters MediaProfile If blank, applies to all media profiles If present, applies to that media profile and better @condition (sold/not-sold/window, etc.) Still discussing

FAQ Does each featurette need its own ALID, or just an ID of some sort? Yes, everything must have an ALID. Presumably this would be derived from the feature ALID For example, md:alid:eidr-s:abcd-abcd-abcd-abcd-abcd-e might become md:alid:eidr- x:abcd-abcd-abcd-abcd-abcd-e:bonus_1 Would each featurette have its own MEC document? Metadata must be provided: Titles, and possibly synopsis and artwork are generally required. This would generally be the same format as the main feature. Hopefully this is MEC. Can CPE or MMC be translated to this? A cursory evaluation says yes. A lot of information is discarded In MMC and CPE don’t explicitly use ALID for the bonus material. Recommendation pending (ExperienceID?)

Existing Fields reused Bonus Avail ID and Business Data Identification (same rules as Avails) LicenseType Business Terms – mostly inherits terms of original offer Bonus metadata Required/Optional – Rules are different for bonus Required subset drafted WorkType, title information, metadata reference, ratings, runtime, etc.

Current Status Fields included in current draft of 1.9 Far right of Avails-TitleList tab End of Data Dictionary tab Template pending Reminder: This is a stopgap measure, people should be moving towards MMC and CPE