W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ar@w3.org > August 2011

[W3C AR CG] start of the Augmented Reality Web discussion

From: ya knygar <knygar@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:50:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJVWO9Z7tY8bHzK8AwnpiDOVjdgvFqaw07v7SbFBp8XTzrPpbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-ar@w3.org
Cc: dev-planning@lists.mozilla.org, webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org, ie-html@listserv.msn.com, discussion@arstandards.org, ar-group-owner@mailnavab.in.tum.de, arforum@arforum.in.tum.de, John Craig Freeman <John_Craig_Freeman@emerson.edu>, pcl-developers@pointclouds.org, pcl-users@pointclouds.org, discuss@freenetworkfoundation.org, freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org, openni-dev@googlegroups.com, public-device-apis@w3.org, public-poiwg@w3.org, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, public-webrtc@w3.org
Hello Communities!

Welcome to the
recently launched W3C AR Community Group
http://www.w3.org/community/ar/

that is gathering the discussions
that we'll try to organize and forward to all the related Communities
that could be interested in a described objectives and Augmented Reality,
at a whole. The topic subject is meant to stay the same, so i hope -
there would not
be a "cross-posting storm". I propose all the interested in
organizational help for W3C AR Web,
to join the http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ar/ mailing
list and create the relevant topics
along with the participation in all of the tools of proposed W3C CG platform.
Response to this digest particularly - could nicely fit in the native
public-ar@w3.org  topic
with the same subject.

Please, excuse me for cross-posting whenever.

-
Rob Manson said:

> I'm not sure where the discussion around defining a specific
> implementation comes from.  Personally, I've never proposed that in any
> way and the points both Blair and Thomas make about this seem logical
> and obvious to me so +1 to that.
>
> If this is because of the initial description of the W3C AR Community
> Group then that's really just an artefact of the setup process and I
> think we should refine this to match exactly the points that have been
> raised.
>
> As for an "all encompassing" Web AR standard...or "any standard" coming
> out of the W3C AR Community Group...I don't think this is the goal for
> these Community Groups at all.  They are not Working Groups.  As far as
> I'm aware they're a new tool for the W3C to encourage broader engagement
> with specific communities of interest.
>
> However, I do think there is a lot of benefit to having a specific W3C
> Community Group focused on AR that can help draw a consistent thread
> through all the other Web Standards that are being defined.  From my
> experience each of the Working Groups are very busy and often get caught
> within their own silo of thinking.
>
> Giving AR a clearly defined voice within the W3C and helping it engage
> with the broader community just seems like a good idea to me.  I would
> hope that this would be a perfect fit for the Argon project and any
> other similar projects.

Thomas Wrobel said:

> Id just point out, if you are focusing on Web-based AR, that thats an
> AR browser implementation solution - so you shouldn't also cover the
> standard for the data itself, as they are two very different things*.

> (Just as HTML specification specifies how html code should be
> displayed - it doesn't say what languages and technology's the browser
> should use to do that. Browsers can thus be coded in many languages,
> and use all sorts of techniques to display the same results. AR
> browsers should be the exact same).

> The discussion of the data standard and code to display that standard
> are thus two separate discussions, and the goal should be quite
> explicit on which it aims to do.

My reply in-line and else:

> The discussion of the data standard and code to display that standard
> are thus two separate discussions, and the goal should be quite
> explicit on which it aims to do.

What I have learned from the situation
of ancient and newer browser wars is

- Competition is a must.
- Interoperability that comes from never-ending Standardization is a must.
- Open Source is a way that works considerably well and often - better
for the Web Browsers

For example - compare the W3C standards, implementation rate
in closed source browsers and in open sourced -- that is, among other, due to
a simple and obvious complexity of implementation and relevance of some
recommendations to a small, and by this, not always considerable parts
of Internet society.

Moreover - even the largest Open Source projects doesn't comply to many of
the W3C recommendations. Of-course it is a complex process with a
complex products,
don't get me wrong -- i don't say that some W3CanonicalBrowser could
have done it better.

But it worse a thoughtful consideration that the developers of these user-agents
are actually - the most active contributors to the whole Web process
involving W3C
and other SDO's or kinds.

Even more, in the scope of the proposed and approved "testing",
"experimentation",
and "implementation" among other - are the actually these meanings for
the creation
of Open AR Web platform, by that - AR Web Browser.

Emerging, first line standards that we may consider for W3C standardized AR Web,
like WebCL, WebGL, other Khronos web and these AR Web related like --
all This Communities
are successfully enlisting and/or discussing -- most of them require
an open sourced
browser to, actually, implement, test, evaluate the AR Web.

I don't see, how this Community Group could productively and openly
work for native WebGL
or WebRTC implementations,
for example, without an actual work with the Open Source code.

+1 for Argon (http://argonbrowser.org/)

especially if
https://research.cc.gatech.edu/kharma/ ,
http://www.augmentedenvironments.org/lab/
and other relevant groups would
Open Source it or parts of it (maybe KHARMA platform, as Argon is the
implementation?)
if it isn't done already somewhere we haven't looked.
BTW IMO - another good example - that Browser project doesn't evolve
as it meant to (from what i'v read) -- because of the partially closed
(they are using WebKit -- LGPL as i know, so it can't be fully closed,
probably:)
environment, see the https://research.cc.gatech.edu/kharma/forums/ar-browsers/

> If this is because of the initial description of the W3C AR Community
> Group then that's really just an artefact of the setup process and I
> think we should refine this to match exactly the points that have been
> raised.

It is not an artifact, actually, but a proposition i'v developed and
subscribed to W3C CG's,
a proposition that gathering the people for this topic and goals,
a proposition that i think - could be reconsidered or refined for
better wording by the discussion
and further voting of not only the Chairs (You see - not all the
people who have voted up for
this description and community group - are in the Chairs, actually)

I have elaborated on a kind of description's FAQ and my personally
considered direction for work in W3C CG
- http://www.w3.org/community/ar/2011/08/20/getting-started-with-the-w3c-ar-community-group/#respond

I'll  re-post it here:

"Thank you Rob,

> “The development of a Web Standards based model for Augmented Reality”

yes, i think – essentially, it is a conditions to start with for a Web
evolution of AR

> Also, I don’t think this group is going to work if we just automatically
> make everyone who joins a co-chair 8)

Of-course I have researched your and Damon Oehlman’s work (and blogs and etc.)

I respect and suspect both of you as a very promising Open AR Web
developers and community maintainers ;)

As long as I take the responsibility – I take it and could motivate
and describe increasingly
any of my decisions.
I hope – all the Chairs would take and response, respectively,
transparently – for their own decisions,
by that – we would trust each-other.

> We don’t need to be too formal…but a little structure would be good I think.

Actually,
for the future comfort of this platform, including the Chairs election
– i am collaborating with XCCC
(mystical XMPP-Concurrent-Confederation-Consortium) folks on the kind
of – https://github.com/Knygar/ChatC
To add to this place a sweet atmosphere of voting for a messaged propositions.
We plan to release on September — a special W3C ARChat edition,
Along with – we could try to use
this – https://www.w3.org/community/ar/wp-admin/admin.php?page=wp-polls/polls-manager.php
Polls
or use the John McLear’s <Primarypad.com and Etherpad Foundation>
current proposition
and have a free non-profit work with Pro Etherpads of Lite and/or Classic.
I hope you’ll enjoy the W3C ARChat edition;
if you just don’t care of these or on which tools to work collaboratively,
lets start from filling the proposed W3C Wiki, maybe?

I feel like i would prefer to use the Wiki and feeds, besides the WP
blogs and inner W3C system,

What are Your favorite Tools for collaboration?

I only – doesn’t view the IRC as a tool for developing an AR Web.

-
“..evaluating a possibility of the secure data schemes for storing the
Point Clouds
(a set of colored points in 3D space, usually achieved in the process
of 3D scanning)
and other social-related GIS AR data..”

that is from the description of this group,
so, i am working for evaluating the conception with http://theFNF.org ;
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss
and these kinds of initiatives.

-
“..dedicated to testing and experimenting with a reference
implementations of W3C..”
for this we could watch:

“The W3C has proposed a new working group and a new interest group in
the area of testing:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2011Aug/0003.html

http://www.w3.org/2011/08/browser-testing-charter is a proposed
charter for a Browser Testing and Tools Working Group. It is
designed to standardize a “Web Driver API” for standard methods for
automated simulation of user actions and a “Console API” to
allow Web pages to log messages to an error console.

http://www.w3.org/2011/05/testing-ig-charter is a proposed charter
for a Web Testing Interest Group. This group is expected to work on
a testing framework, test suite and test case management systems,
spec annotation tools, test runners, and related items.

Please let me know:
(a) if there are any comments you think Mozilla should send about
these charters (i.e., if there’s anything you think should be
changed, and how strongly you think we should insist on such a
change)

(b) if you’re interested in participating in the group

(c) if you think Mozilla should express support (or opposition) for
these proposals

The deadline for comments is next Friday, August 26.

-David
dbaron@dbaron.org via lists.mozilla.org to dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org”

-
Mozilla Community, i believe – would overcome all the current and future issues,
by that and for reasons of collaboration and actual – development on white spots
of Open Web AR stack
- I propose to start
“the reference AR Web platform, dedicated to testing and experimenting”
with the help of

https://github.com/andreasgal/B2G
https://github.com/mozilla/chromeless
https://github.com/mozilla/openwebapps
and other related work like the https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI

My, personal, opinion is that
— all these initiatives are being increasingly standardized,
providing us with a solid base for a sustainable work on the stated missions.
By that – I see the Mozilla as an obvious and willing party for our
Augmented Reality Web
testing and experimenting work.

Dear Co-Chairs, other participants and interested – please – describe
your opinions,
propose the best and vote-up for something in a message or poll result.
"

Please, note that i'm a human being from Ukraine so my English syntax
variety could be poor and wrong - occasionally.
Also - i have to done the CG group description in a most polite way,
as the AR itself is the
widely discussed term etc.

Rob:
> As for an "all encompassing" Web AR standard...or "any standard" coming
> out of the W3C AR Community Group...I don't think this is the goal for
> these Community Groups at all.  They are not Working Groups.  As far as
> I'm aware they're a new tool for the W3C to encourage broader engagement
> with specific communities of interest.
+1

> However, I do think there is a lot of benefit to having a specific W3C
> Community Group focused on AR that can help draw a consistent thread
> through all the other Web Standards that are being defined.  From my
> experience each of the Working Groups are very busy and often get caught
> within their own silo of thinking.
Indeed.

-
Finally, the latest post from Thomas Wrobel

on the Rob Manson's:
>> I'm not sure where the discussion around defining a specific
>> implementation comes from.  Personally, I've never proposed that in any
>> way and the points both Blair and Thomas make about this seem logical
>> and obvious to me so +1 to that.

> Well, there could be varying ways to do a in-website AR browser, but
> thats still just one possible way to make a AR browser.
> Thus if the group was to focus on " Web Standards based model" that is
> at the very least a sub-set of possible implementations.

let's try and figure out what does AR mean in a W3C way?

> eg. If the web model proposes using WebGL, that makes sense for
> javascript based browsers designed to run on webpages.

JS, ES and it's variations are the most-used languages for the web,
i think - we should work with Industry Standards, by that - with JavaScript,
other opinions?

> However, standalone ar browsers (or hybrid browsers) would have no
> need of that. They could use DirectX, OpenGL/ES, or any other 3D
> solution they wish. Dictating they have to use the "web standard" to
> render their 3d wouldn't serve any benefit as all are capable of
> producing the same visual result - which is really all that matters.

i don't agree, using the best W3C proposed and widely adapted open standards
is not a way of "dictating", as for me.

> Thats what I meant by that definition focusing on a specific
> implementation. I should have really said type of implementation I
> guess.
>
> Note; I'm not saying theres anything wrong with defining a specific
> implementation either. At least defining what technologies can be used
> to make it possible and easy is a must.
> --
> The AR field and task is so big subdivision seems sensible to me. So I
> think each groups goals should be precisely defined.

I think the W3C AR CG as the W3C Community would work for W3C standards
to help on providing to anybody - the W3C recommended AR stack.

> Theres at the very least in my view a few overall separate tasks;
>
> a) Defining the data standard to store AR data. (that is, the physical
> links between real and virtual data, as well as a few
> standard/recommended formats for this data to be in).

for sure, it is in the description for Group and it would be done as fully
as possible, along with the Group's recommendations for the Secure and Private
Data storage's.

> b) For web based AR browsers there needs to be a look at precisely
> what existing things can be used, seeing if they are suitable as they
> are or need extensions, and if necessary defining new things.

I think - the recognizing of possible extensions and extensibility and
all related staff
should be done with help of this Group,
there are W3C and other emerging standards for almost all in the Web.

> c) Overall promotion and branding of AR, as you say, engage in the
> larger community.  Theres also issues regarding Patents that could
> effect AR quite negatively in the future. (Apple recently successfully
> patenting ARs use on transparent displays, for example, could cause
> problems for HMDs)

I hope - wide W3C Community would help on possible problems,
as i know - W3C isn't failing with patents policy so far..?

> Those are very rough and of the top of my head.
> There might be more, or different divisions. But really I am just
> urging precise definition and separation of the tasks that need to be
> done in different groups.

This Group - i suppose - is to connect and help to the variety of WG's
as we won't
need many other standards besides that is W3C or aimed to be here.
Well, besides the propositions for healthy use, maybe.
Received on Saturday, 20 August 2011 20:50:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 August 2011 20:50:39 GMT