Minutes by: Erik Guttman, Samsung
Attendees list: (may not be complete, but included) - Tencent - Lei Yixue, Yuhang Jia, Ericsson - Peter Bleckert, Daniel Lönnblad, LG Uplus - Wunjung Kim, Huawei - Alice, China Mobile - Xiaowen Sun, ZTE - Yvette Koza, NTT Docomo - Kenta Yamauchi, Manmeet Singh - Rakuten, China Telecom - Yinglin Chen, Telstra - Frank Savaglio
We agreed to discuss the agenda.
1 Terminology 2 Open issues 3 Next Steps
Please see the input document https://ftp.3gpp.org/Email_Discussions/SA1/S1-223zzz-22856-pCR-Terminology-02.docx Please see the output document https://ftp.3gpp.org/Email_Discussions/SA1/S1-223zzz-22856-pCR-Terminology-03.docx
Action items identified
- continue to work on the terms according to the guidance via email. Probably should not be on the agenda of the next meeting since we made good progress.
- do not include ‘consolidation input’ to SA1 100, it is too early
- for the next coordination meeting on 18.10.22, contributions that did not make progress in previous meeting should be discussed
- issues proposed to be discussed are requirements that were not agreed in past meetings, use cases not agreed in past meetings
- each paper will get around 10 minutes
- please provide a draft pCR for the next meeting by 14.10.22 to present the part that was problematic
General
- Peter
- Is it OK to use the term Metaverse?
- Erik
- this was checked, and the term is not trademarked.
- Peter
- use of ‘metaverse’ before the term ‘media’ confuses the definition, possibly making it circular
Term ‘local’
- Peter
- The term is too broad, must be qualified.
- Alice
- the key aspect is ‘relevance’ but it is not easy to see this at first
- Erik
- OK, I will restructure the sentence to bring this to the front.
Term ‘digital representation’
- Lei
- this may be of physical objects as well as virtual objects. Is the term ‘avatar’ redundant?
- Erik
- Avatar is more specific and used as part of many service descriptions in the TR, we should keep it.
- Daniel
- ‘media’ is too broad a term and must be clarified
Term ‘avatar’
It was initially written to be of a ‘person’ or ‘virtual object’, but ‘virtual object’ is too broad & clashes with digital representation and is somehow circular.
It was observed that an avatar is not always a person, it could be any interactive being (including a virtual entity provided by software, a pet, etc.)
- Peter
- the term mobile metaverse should be the basis and not derived from mobile metaverse service
- Peter, Daniel
- in what sense ‘mobile’. OK to differentiate from ‘metaverse’ but is this the right term?
Term ‘immersive’
It was observed that this term is subjective.
Term ‘pose’
- Lei
- shouldn’t we mention movement in the definition?
- Yvette (?)
- This term does not imply any movement
- Alice
- there is a much more detailed definition of XRPose from SA4, perhaps use this (26.928)
- Erik
- I think there is a lot we can do to improve the clarity of the relationship between sensing and metaverse studies. In particular, the KPIs for sensing (uplink) in the metaverse TR may belong in the sensing study. I am taking care of my use cases, but this is a general issue.
- Alice
- I agree that further clarity would be good. It may not be easy to achieve. Note that in SA4 they already have defined sensing uplink performance requirements.
- Erik
- the scope of sensing seems to be under debate - is it only NR related? or is it anything having to do with sensing data communication that remains unclear in stage 1?