Transcript An Analysis Mary Trauner Georgia Institute of Technology

Data Collaboration in Support of
Academia and Research: An Analysis
Mary Trauner
Georgia Institute of Technology
Video Development Initiative (ViDe)
Internet2, Spring 2001 Member Meeting
March 8, 2001
Washington, DC
Some Definitions
Collaboration: to work with one another, to cooperate
towards common goals, to participate.
Collabication: represents the merged skills that the
media (video, application sharing, and
document conferencing) require.
Data Collaboration: represents, in our emerging
multimedia environment,
participating and working in a
virtual workspace.
Mission: Education
Three groups contribute to this mission:
Academics
Researchers
Administrators
Needs Analysis - Academics
Classroom - shared whiteboards, browsers, chats,
back-channels, telepointers, annotation tools,
scientific/engineering software
Faculty and School Advisors - guidance and
counseling, mentor relationships, individualized
support (“office hours”)
Course Developers - course design products such
as WebCT, IMS
Students - personal notes, personal whiteboard copy
Special Needs - equitable access
Other - equitable experience, elapsed time, course
repositories
Needs Analysis - Researchers
General - proposals, budgets, status reports,
publications
Scientists and Engineers - large scale models, CAD
renderings, scientific visualization of model output,
remote control interfaces
Medical Professionals - collaborative discussions
and curriculum planning, virtual rounds, remote
and collaborative diagnosis, X-Rays, MRI’s, video
tapes, online resources
Other - telepointers, annotation tools
Needs Analysis - Administrators
Administrators and administrative users strategic/operational planning, presentations, student
records, student aid, budget preparations/tracking,
accounts payable/receivable, database systems,
brainstorming
Developers - database design/applications, institutional
software development or tailoring
End Users - administrative uses, staff development
Service Providers - HelpDesk functions
Other - economic development, sports, community
service
Needs Analysis - General
Chair Control
Scheduling and Timers
Agendas for Meetings or Classes
Cursor Distinction
Automatic vs Individual/Custom Screen Layouts
Participant Status
Participant Lists
Security, Authentication
Recording of Meeting or Collaboration
Shared Repository Elements
T.120 Analysis
What is T.120
What portions are mandatory
Current implementations
Tested Uses
T.120: The Standard
Common Protocol - Network
Independent
Protocol Data Units
Layered Services
Peer to Peer Communications
Still Image and annotation
Multipoint binary file transfer
Generic application template
Generic Application Template
T.121: The Standard
Application Protocol Entities
Application Resource Manager
Application Service Element
T.123: The Standard
Maps Network Specific Protocols
into a Common Interface
T.122/T.125: The Standard
MCS Collects Sessions to
Form a Multipoint Domain
T.124: The Standard
GCC Handles:
Establishment/Termination
Conference Roster
Application Roster
Application Registry
Shared Resources
Conductor Assignment
Timing Tools
Operator Assistance
Text Messaging
T.127: The Standard
General Purpose File Transfer
Mandatory
Single Broadcast
Optional
Multiple File Broadcast
Conductor Control
Private Distribution
T.126: The Standard
White Board
Bitmap Images
Annotation
Virtual Pointers
Parametric Drawing
Workspace
N depth-ordered planes
T.128: The Standard
Application Sharing
Logical Desktop
Window Model
Z Layers
Flow Control
Workspace or Desktop
S.B.’s Workspace
Mary’s Workspace
T.120: Current Implementations
Microsoft NetMeeting
SGI SGIMeeting
VCON MeetingPoint
Lotus SameTime
Sun SunForum
HP Visual Conference
PictureTel LiveShare Plus
CUseeMe
T.120: Tested Uses
Still Image
File transfer
Chat
Whiteboard
Xwindows
Animation
Video (with audio)
T.120: Summary
Positive
Does MBFT and SI well
Fairly widespread
Inexpensive or Free
Negative
Implementation Compliance
Dueling cursor
Shared versus Private Layer Displays
Limited Support for Video or Animation
Scalability
Alternate Technologies, Tools
Access Grid’s dxpc
VRVS
hipbone
ZofX
SurfNchat
ReLaTa
TANGO
NetShowLive
GroupKit
CVW
Vxtreme
InfoWorkSpace
IP/TV
MBone
CoBrow
Habanero
Odyssey
CWW
DCV, MERCI
mDesk
TeleDraw
Alternate Technologies,
Categories
Shared Browsers
hipbone
SurfNChat
Netscape Conference
ZofX
JAVA/Javascript Tools
Habanero
JCE
mDesk
TANGO
Multicast
VRVS
Mbone
MECCANO
CWW
Specific Applications
dxpc
Whiteboards/Chat
Voxphone
CuSeeMe
Eventware
MERCI
TeleDraw
Centralized
Distributed
Virtual Rooms Videoconferencing System
….to provide a low cost, bandwidth-efficient, extensible tool
for videoconferencing and collaborative work over networks
within the High Energy and Nuclear Physics communities and
to some extent within Research and Education at large.
Implementation Model
VRVS Web User Interface
QuickTime
(vic, vat/rat,..)
V4.0
H.323
MPEG
Others
??
QoS
VRVS Reflectors (Unicast/Multicast)
Collaborative
Applications
Mbone
Tools
Real Time Protocol (RTP/RTCP)
Network Layer (TCP/IP)
done
Partially done
Work in progress
Continuously in development
User Interface
Information: Virtual Room name,Title, Current time
and ending time
Participants: geographical origin, media started,
Full name and email
Click to start: audio, video, whiteboard, chat,
and web links
User Interface
Client Applications currently used in VRVS.
Public-Domain or Free Players
Good “Sense of Presence”: 10 Frames/sec Within 100-200
Kbps or 20-25 Frames/sec within 300-500 Kbps
Tunable Bandwidth/Quality/Resource Matching
Multi-Platforms : Linux, Unix’s, Windows95/98/NT/2000,
Macintosh (only with QuickTime)
Efficient, Tunable
CHAT
WhiteBoard
VIC
QuickTime Player 4.x
VAT
RAT
User Interface
Example: 9 Participants, CERN(2), Caltech, FNAL(2), Bologna
(IT), Roma (IT), Milan (IT), Rutherford(UK)
R&D : H.323 Integration
R&D : Sharing Desktop
VNC technology integrated in VRVS
SurfNchat
SurfNchat
ZofX
ZofX
ZofX
Windows only
Java
One-way only (Post/View)
Snapshot or Continuous
Via file area (with ftp option)
No audio
Performance based on network
TANGO Interactive
Unix or Windows NT
Java(script) with browser startup
Bi-directional, flexible session
control
Apps on multiple HTTP servers
Supports video and gaming
Shared Event vs Shared Display
Apps required on each system
Record and Playback
Centralized server
Scalability via RTSP/RTP
C, C++, Lisp integration for high
quality viz/video apps
TANGO Interactive
Conclusions
What criteria should we follow in selecting
tools?
•Needs Analysis
•Stability
•Availability and Cost
•Performance
•Standards Compliance, Open Source
•Security
•Authentication
•Scalability
Will T.120 fit our bill?
Should we look to other solutions?
Can we get what we need today from either?
Future Work
Complete study of T.12x standards
Continue overview of alternate collaboration tools
Complete paper (stages)
Develop collaboration section on ViDe web site
Study deployment issues (separate from VC)
Set up a Data Collaboration Working Group
(Interested?)
Questions?
www,vide.net/
www.vide.gatech.edu/outreach/
Contact Information
Voice: (404)894-6166
H.323: 130.207.179.209
Email: [email protected]
Web:
www.hpc.gatech.edu/Mary.Trauner/