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

Re: [AR Standards Discussion] ARML Standards Working Group being formed through OGC (available for comment)

From: ya knygar <knygar@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 01:53:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJVWO9ZTws-729NvB8X58r1G0mcFW1Td9vRjmrQN4ZYni0M9fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Lechner <martin.lechner@wikitude.com>
Cc: "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, AR CG <public-ar@w3.org>
@Martin Lechner

Hello!
Here comes the long, weekend mail-post :)

As i know something about you,
brief introduction of myself:

I often write the long posts - and people from time to time have a
difficulties in understanding these, especially given my not so fluent
English syntax and style.
 Please feel free to ask me anything about my posts, i'm ready to
rephrase it all till all is clear.

I'm from Ukraine, an UX-UI designer professionally,
 so - i know the W3C proposed front-end staff to the reasonable degree
and all these non-graphical-design, more tech'y, 'Web programming'
(and back-end systems) - nuances that Web designers are facing
currently while they want to make the quality front-ends.

To add into the content topic:
- one of my greatest hopes for the Open AR community (more about it -
later) is that we are able to gather and govern the best initiatives
to create the really useful CMS's and frameworks that would work both
for AR and 'simply' for the 3D Web (I see the 3D as a reference
example for AR Web, it is not a disrespect for 2D content, just, 3D is
complex, still honored enough to use it as a reference example).

The reasons why i'm for Open Source AR systems - are very transparent
and straightforward.
For a one example -- i haven't yet met in my professional or other
work - not a single !1 framework or CMS related to Web content
creation and presentation, i mean it -- not a 1 -- that were secure or
simply mature enough by any mean i could consider about
-- and not being in Open Source.

By this, respectfully following the 'not invented here' principal
- i understand that it wouldn't be possible to move in such a rates or
with such a security and other quality measures -- that people await
from the 3D Web (knowing the '3D for the Web' history, i need to say -
finally we could talk and see the 3D-representend web, now with the
help and in scope of AR)
-- and not being in Open Source :)

To explain what i mean - on the content creation examples:

For AR Web
I distinguish two kinds of systems for content creation currently:

1. framework/CMS coupled -- like WebGL frameworks, computer-sensors
frameworks (including CV and CListen and etc.)
2. de-coupled -- like a Dreamweaver :)

1st. Including the most popular CMS's - these systems at the current
stage - still require the knowledge of some markup language to produce
the content, at least a ML, in case of 3D it often require JS, maybe
even C. In case of the Natural Interactions maybe even strong C :)

But -- given the advanced complexity of 3D and overall - possibility
for a 3D as a reference AR experience (what i mean for AR among other
is - new interfaces that could sense in 3D and more, that is in the
Khronos StreamInput WG scope - as i understand)
so -- given that advanced complexity, in the stage where the HTML/CSS
needs to be written by hand, or it wouldn't have the proper quality
and by this - what is important - performance, or even worse -
security if you use some PHP, for example.

In this stage, given the real demand and hardware possibilities for
Web 3D -- the only variant i see and moreover - the variant that is
being developed is the CMS's that would provide the WYSIWYG, WYM and
any needed for the Web evolution - interfaces - that could be used by
people who want to make something amazing, still - in most cases -
aren't able to learn server staff/HTML/CSS/JS/POI or ARML/some
framework to connect these/some forums to understand the current Web
Browsers capabilities..

For WebGL/CL there are frameworks that are being leaded to the
near-CMS experience..
There are some basic and some advanced frameworks for computer senses
including picture markers recognition..(i know you know it all :) just
i feel the need for some quick summary to ensure that we are all
talking about the same Augmented Reality variants)
 I don't talk about offline or online creation as most of the proper
API-able software could be connected to the Web.
So -- this drives me to the conclusion that -- what you would see next
is - the AR frameworks>>CMS's that uses these 3D/sensors parts,
combine them, provide some High level like WYG/WYM and/or Low level
like C/JS.. medium levels like
http://www.w3.org/community/declarative3d/ proposes, as i understand.

for 2nd. well, i just want to add that there are some relations with
these WYG/WYM frameworks -- but these frameworks are often - the JS
libraries and Dreamweaver isn't, obviously :)

@Martin Lechner
if you have read to this point :)

two more questions:

1.  when/if ARML would be renamed to some other ML -- in which
category, in which place of the developers activity which i'v tried to
describe above - do you see the Wikitude's *ML future?
I have read the materials that were posted - about ARML charter, but,
still, i feel that if you would clarify it in that categories and
..levels i have noted above - we all would better understand the OGC
ARML propositions and how they differ, where they correlate among
existing.

2. I have already surveyed the Layar developer (they have one variant
of OSS content server as i understand),
and as long as you are here i need to ask you, as the Wikitude developer..
- do you see any future for the Wikitude in Open Source? Representing
the Open AR side of the AR community i need the insightful answer,
just like i'v got from the Blair MacIntyre -- to be happy :)


-
To sum up my elaboration on Open systems
-- I think - most of the professionals here - could agree that
currently there are a steep learning curve even for the very simple
Web pages UX,

 and while we go to the 3D and more - into the AR, we all would
seriously benefit from the easy to use tools. Moreover - when i talk
of my dream AR (and next Web, to add) - i dream of environment where
completely non tech-savvy people could bring something up to the Web.
Up to the AR finally. I mean - something we aren't see yet not from
the SaaS Site constructors not from the most serious WYSIWYG Web
editors.

When i add the current Web Applications 'revolution' to this equation and the
 the need of WYSIWYM - the need of semantic by one or another mean for
the Web to evolve... these are the old and basic Web needs, actually.
Not something we consider as a 'Wow' for the Web 3.0 :)
I came to the conclusion that -- only by the collaboration there are
rising in CV etc. and we could rise in Content field --  something
great. Let it be forks/derivatives competition like now in the most of
the best software systems i know, like we have in the most of Web
Browsers.

There were talks around the egg and the chicken of AR Web content
creation/presentation,
for this i'm with Blair MacIntyre, Thomas Wrobel and Rob Manson(i'm
sure - Rob is about these, from all what i'v seen) -- for the
libraries, in my,
 described case - the libraries which are actually the frameworks
which would try to be the good CMS's/at some point - include the
front-end to work with or else >> the point that -- all these are to
be ran in the AR-enabled Web browsers, granting re-usabilty among
these browsers along with other benefits.

I'm not positive nor negative - about the in-browser customizations,
just i believe - the content should be interoperable, maintainable and
deliverable anyway, with the semantic or other kinds of open
API's(that is another big topic) - inclusively. What could grant it? I
think - the using of existing or on-dev standards that we are talking
about. Yes - JS for someone, Dec3D (..CSS/HTML/XML) for someone, but
like this, reusing and supporting the best, not inventing, whenever is
possible.

Ok, that was my short opinion, i have a larger messages on other
lists, describing my understanding of business encouraging FLOSS
etc.etc. so i won't go off-topic here too much.
Thank you for your attention!

> Don't know if we've met in person yet, did we?

No, we didn't. I'm from Eastern Europe AR community if we could
distinguish a such (i think we could - as on local fields -- there are
work with/for AR, for the many use-cases of it, again, AR is a very
wide topic, you know)

both ya knygar and Ya Knygar, Ya and knygar is completely ok, as you
won't miss :)

So far, besides my letters here and there
Open AR Call [http://primarypad.com/OpenAR-Call] activity and local
meetings, discussing the net-able AR infrastructure variants - there
aren't much work towards helping the standardization nor - forward the
face to face meetings on conferences. I mean - i haven't seen nobody
here from Russian Federation or Ukraine, and there are, definitely,
developers and companies that using AR.

I hope it would change as soon as we (as the Open AR or else) would
come to something significant enough to show/discuss on these 'global'
meetings. So far, mailing about the current state 'of the deal' was
very nice, kudo's to the AR Standards list ;)

> Don't know if I got your first question right - are you asking me if it is OK to move forward within an other SDO, different from W3C?

sure, that was one of the questions.

> Well, I think AR has a serious focus on geolocation

without a doubt.

> So, bottom line, I know that each SDO has its own set of rules on where and how other groups can interact with in-house-groups, and this sometimes causes some "political borders"

straight to the point!

the fact is -- working under W3C (since that new CG's initiative) and
the IETF grants the "open borders" for a guy like me, being from some
relatively small, actually - Ukrainian Open Source and 'cultural
fields' 'communities' -- to reasonable(cost-effective) get myself into
the OGC or mainland(pre-CG's) W3C -- i'll need to convince some local
GIS institution, i think.. it isn't the good way as for me, even so
the results and/or work would be in public. I think the other 3
Co-Chairs of W3C AR CG, including Rob Manson - also - would met the
constrains in contributing/participating in the ARML SWG work.
By this - i have asked in my first message "do you plan an open
mailing list or forum during the development of proposition,
 so people - who aren't the members of OGC for one or another reason
- would be able to contribute/etc. into the standard formation - in other way?"
I don't think that FW'ding would work.

one working example
- "The IETF is completely open to newcomers. There is no formal
membership, no membership fee, and nothing to sign. By participating,
you do automatically accept the IETF's rules, including the rules
about intellectual property (patents, copyrights and trademarks). If
you work for a company and the IETF will be part of your job, you must
obviously clear this with your manager. However, the IETF will always
view you as an individual, and never as a company representative."

W3C AR CG's mailing lists and facilities are also should be completely
ok by the copyrights and other aspects.. actually.
Currently the AR CG wiki is empty but as soon as there would by
WYSIWYG editor for the wiki (we'v been promised -- soon) it would be
another protected place to track and actually make AR Web related
standard.

 I think - some mixed(innovative?) work with OGC would grant the
serious professionals back-end and a nice open place to work together
for the best AR Web standards.
You'r already in the W3C AR CG, as far as i understand - you could be
the Chair any time you wish to actively contribute to the W3C
standards, i just need to add again - our current scope is in
connecting and reusing that is on the way - that is - what we are
working for in the W3C AR CG, it is all - in the description.

Now i see in the https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikitude
"Wikitude is W3C member and OGC[4] member and is working to develop
ARML further as part of a W3C ARML project."

That means that *ML would finally work in the W3C ..as i understand..
OGC infrastructure isn't open enough to ensure the proper acceptance
from the wide W3C 'community' that would look on the OGC ARML and
would try to mix it with W3C POI, HTML5, Dec3D, DAPs etc. -- that are
looking and trying now, actually.
Waiting, along with the current work - for ARML to come from the
closed to the open (like in the IETF of like in the W3C CG's) -
participation isn't a proper way to develop such a serious ..it is the
serious of the most serious, it is - Reality standard :)  ..as i
understand.

To - W3C itself gained not a nice reputation (Wiki says), not a
reputation of the open to participate community, some
hundreds(thousands for someone) of dollars to pay was one of the
reasons ofc... along with other constrains. There were even
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Open_Web_Foundation
created, WHATWG for HTML..
But now - there are a huge leap forward with these CG's, as i see,
maybe we should try?

I think - people here - as these two lists could somehow represent the
'AR worldwide community of developers and businesses' - would comment.
Of-course i'm not assuming that ARML could  be in some way forced
currently, i don't think - anyone assuming it, i don't think it is
possible on the Open Web ATM, just that - developing in open(free to
anyone interested) places would only help and i don't see constrains,
besides the possibly needed OGC bureaucracy (in the best meaning) in a
process of the 'mixing' the development places.


@Rob Manson
> Just using the geolocation/orientation APIs to drive css/canvas updates is not enough any more.
+1, again.
The fact is - the Natural Interaction and Computer Vision parties - at
least -- are here - so we can't ignore their view on AR. Moreover -
why should we? Given that these parties produce the best and most
promising software systems(Open Source, to mention) for the AR (i
could explain if needed, ofc.). Some of these software systems were
developed for years with the resources and knowledge that simply -
stupid to try to replicate, as for me.

@All
http://weblog.bocoup.com/javascript-augmented-reality
is another nice example of JSARToolkit current capabilities.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
> Here's just one simple example of the type of data processing that can
> be done by accessing the video streams within a browser's DOM.
> http://fhtr.org/JSARToolKit/demos/tests/test2.html
>
> Remixing reality is another.
> https://demos.mozilla.org/#remixingreality
>
> At the moment it's not really possible (or at least easy) to do this
> with a real stream.  These examples use pre-recorded video.  But these
> demos are real implementations of very basic computer vision, all
> running in javascript.  And there's definitely 3 or more working
> groups/proposals that should lead to this type of access/capability
> soon.
>
> The same sort of signal processing could be done on audio to implement
> computer hearing too.
>
> Once we have real access to the video and audio stream data then just by
> visiting a new URL you can activate specific new types of computer
> vision/hearing.  They'll just be javascript...and then webCL makes this
> even more powerful.
>
> This, combined with access to all the other sensor APIs is what I mean
> when I talk about web standards based AR.
>
> Just using the geolocation/orientation APIs to drive css/canvas updates
> is not enough any more.
>
>
> roBman
>
>
>
> On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 06:35 +0200, Martin Lechner wrote:
>> Hi Rob et. al.!
>>
>> As Christine was already pointing out, I was referring to a conversation
>> before the meeting in Basel. I will attend the meetings in Basel in person.
>>
>> As for your points in regards to audio and video: One question pops up
>> in my head when reading this: "Do we really need this at this level?".
>> I mean, having sound and video streams in the HTML DOM would be awesome.
>> But I think it is not necessary at this stage.
>> Again, I like comparisons with Web Browsers, and I think I have already
>> pointed that out: A HTML developer does not care how the content is
>> rendered onto the screen. It's the end result that is of interest to
>> him, and it should match the expectations he has from the input he gave.
>> Something like "Get that div right under this image, no matter how you
>> do it, I don't care, I just want to have that div under the image."
>> I see similar situations in AR: You got a "location" (in a very broad
>> sense - might be a geospatial location, might be a reference image,
>> might be something else) which registers virtual content in the real
>> world. It's the Browser's job to get the presentation defined for this
>> virtual object onto the screen in the right location. It needs to come
>> equipped with tools for initialization and tracking of features, but I
>> think it's not the developer's job to perform this analysis. It might be
>> overdone for most of the "ordinary AR content developer" (I know this is
>> not a very precise definition of a type of person :-) we can take a HTML
>> developer as a reference) .
>> It would be just as if we would give the HTML developer kind of "native
>> access" to the 2D rendering engine in a browser. The only thing that
>> comes to my mind in this regards is the HTML5 canvas, where you can use
>> script languages to draw things. In AR, I think we are already there,
>> using JavaScript to print things on the camera. There might be the need
>> to get access to mic and cam streams, but it's not mandatory.
>> As soon as we have access to video-streams in the DOM, we can bridge the
>> aproaches and give the AR developer access to these new DOM elements if
>> they really require it, and probably he can use JavaScript to place
>> objects into it. But again, I don't know if this should be part of a
>> markup language for AR (specifically *a* markup language).
>>
>> Probably we're coming from two different ends. What is your opinion on
>> what an "ordinary AR content developer" would do with access to the
>> video stream?
>>
>> As for the discussion on "*the* AR markup language", there was some
>> discussion going on here in Boulder as well, in regards to the scope of
>> the ARML 2.0 SWG, and even probably naming it differently. We will
>> refine the scope of the SWG within the next few days, based on the
>> comments we got. We have already discussed that there won't be something
>> like *the* AR standard solving everything (something the name "ARML"
>> might suggest), a naming issue should not be the biggest of our
>> problems. We will discuss that in the group.
>> Anyway, in terms of updating the charter, I will make sure that the AR
>> community group will be updated. Once the changes are incorporated
>> (which should be in 1 or 2 weeks), I will also share it with the
>> community group, so you get a clear picture on what's happening inside
>> the SWG.
>>
>> Curious to hear your feedback on the above!
>> Best, and have a great weekend!
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> Am 18.09.2011 02:46, schrieb Rob Manson:
>> > Hi Martin,
>> >
>> > setting up a webex or probably easier a skype presentation shouldn't be
>> > a problem.  But based on this, I'm assuming that you won't be able to
>> > attend in person.  So that leaves me wondering is it really worth
>> > allocating a big chunk of day 2 for a discussion around ARML if the key
>> > evangelist for it isn't there in person?
>> >
>> > As for your point about ARchitect/ARML 2.0 being a web based
>> > standard...I think a more accurate classification would be as a standard
>> > that "uses the web as an overlay".  Using a shim that overlays a
>> > UIWebView or similar over a video background is a step in the right
>> > direction at the presentation level.  But this is a long way from where
>> > a truly web based AR standard should be.
>> >
>> > Without having the video and audio streams natively within the DOM and
>> > accessible as a first-class data citizen means this is just a baby step.
>> > And if that's the basis for an AR standard then it's a baby step that
>> > could seriously distort any data structures and models defined.
>> >
>> > This is my main criticism (hopefully seen as constructive).  To define a
>> > standard as "THE" markup language for "AR" and claim it's "web based",
>> > before we have integrated audio and video into the DOM is just way too
>> > premature on both counts.  What you are working with may be a 2.0
>> > version of the standard you've developed...but it's nothing like a 1.0
>> > version of the AR everyone envisions...yet.  Without at least a pathway
>> > towards deeper media pattern processing like Computer Vision and Hearing
>> > then we're really not even at a robust Alpha yet.
>> >
>> > roBman
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, 2011-09-17 at 03:52 +0200, Martin Lechner wrote:
>> >> Hi everyone!
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to add a couple of things to the previous emails - sorry for
>> >> the lengthy email, but it's weekend anyway, so you should have time to
>> >> read :-)
>> >>
>> >> First, I have seen couple of comments in this email list stating that
>> >> ARML is not Web Technology centered. While this holds true for ARML
>> >> 1.0 (fair to say that KML and ARML 1.0 are not a standard web
>> >> technology - totally agree), it certainly won't for ARML 2.0.
>> >> As stated in the charter, we have created a framework called
>> >> "ARchitect". The ARchitect basically consists of nothing but
>> >> webtechnologies, especially HTML and JavaScript. It is capable of any
>> >> web technology (well, skip flash for the iPhone ... but this is not in
>> >> our hands ;-) ) a browser is capable to render (fully fledged HTML,
>> >> JavaScript, CSS, etc., you can render it in any standard browser).
>> >> What we have created is a thin JavaScript library which allows
>> >> creation and manipulation of AR objects (augmentations, virtual things
>> >> - call it whatever you want) in the AR scene - very similar to
>> >> JavaScript manipulating the HTML DOM. The AR objects and all the HTML
>> >> lives in a background-transparent web view which lays on top of the
>> >> camera screen.
>> >> The only additional part to standard web technologies is the library
>> >> that encapsulates AR objects and allows the browser (still *native*
>> >> Browser, you name it - Wikitude, Argon, and others, webbrowsers do not
>> >> allow access to crucial AR parts - you know about that anyway) to
>> >> interact with the JavaScript library.
>> >> And, as stated in the charter as well, this should also be a basis for
>> >> the ARML 2.0 discussion. In the SWG, we will aim to find out how we
>> >> can combine existing standards (including KML, but also others) with
>> >> "Web AR" technologies like the Wikitude ARchitect.
>> >> In my opinion (without knowing exact details about the mentioned new
>> >> version of Argon), ARchitect and Argon showcase a very similar
>> >> approach to an Open AR Standard. I don't see that much of a difference
>> >> yet. I would like to have a chat (either over phone, or at ISMAR) with
>> >> Blair and his team to find out if our approaches differ that much, as
>> >> Blair states it in his emails.
>> >>
>> >> The second thing I want to discuss is the statement in various emails
>> >> that the OGC ARML 2.0 SWG was formed because Wikitude has commercial
>> >> interests in getting ARML standardized.
>> >> Well - first of all, before a company can join OGC, it has to sign a
>> >> contract that everything developed in the OGC is available free of
>> >> charge for everyone. ARML will not be an exception. And to be honest,
>> >> we never thought about "licensing" ARML - it simply wouldn't work, and
>> >> it wouldn't be used by anyone if one has to pay for a standard -
>> >> seriously, who would?!
>> >> Second: after all, when a new standard was developed, it's not
>> >> mission-critical for a company, including Wikitude, to define a new
>> >> standard in the industry it is working in. Call it AR_XYZ-Standard -
>> >> the company will not receive a huge benefit if it created a standard.
>> >> The standard is free of charge, that's it. There is fairly limited
>> >> business potential in a new standard.
>> >> I remember a discussion I had with Dirk a couple of months ago, where
>> >> we said "whoever creates the standard, it doesn't really matter". In
>> >> fact, a standard is like a set of key/value pairs, packaged in
>> >> different structures. It should be no problem for anyone in the AR
>> >> industry to adapt to a new standard, different from the one it used
>> >> previously. Write a new parser, that should be it (ideally ;-) )
>> >> What I do agree is that it gives some nice press coverage every now
>> >> and then, but with all the press releases that are released every week
>> >> and month by the different AR companies, it doesn't make lots of
>> >> difference.
>> >>
>> >> What drives us (and particularly me) is to get things finally started.
>> >> It's nice to see things growing everywhere, and to see guys talking
>> >> about things that matter (some matter more, some matter less), but
>> >> somewhere, it must get down to something more formal, otherwise, we
>> >> keep talking for another couple of years. Together with the OGC, we
>> >> decided to give it a go now, and I already laid out in my last email
>> >> that we will keep a close eye on the extensibility of ARML 2.0 to not
>> >> close doors in the future - I think that's another very important
>> >> point.
>> >>
>> >> In case you are interested, I can do a presentation somewhen (at ISMAR
>> >> at the latest) so you can learn more about the web-framework we have
>> >> created, or we could do some kind of WebEx (don't know if that's
>> >> possible Rob) where everyone can get involved and share his thoughts.
>> >> Probably this could line us up better and let us shoot in the same
>> >> direction, rather than in opposite ones.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, and looking forward to your feedback!
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 17.09.2011 01:10, schrieb Blair MacIntyre:
>> >>> I could talk about KARML/Argon if you want;  we could also combine
>> >>> it around the same time as ARML.  I would love to see some solid
>> >>> details on ARML 2.0 before then, regardless, so I can have something
>> >>> intelligent to say about it (esp regarding our own thinking about AR
>> >>> extensions to KML, and the things we might not have done or might be
>> >>> planning).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Whatever the group thinks is useful.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Christine Perey wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Blair,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The AR Standards Community meeting on Oct 24-25 would provide an
>> >>>> appropriate venue for community discussion of KARML/Argon. It is
>> >>>> entirely up to you. You (and the topic) are not currently on our
>> >>>> agenda. See the draft agenda here:
>> >>>> http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/fourth-meeting-agenda/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> However, having said that, during the programme committee meeting
>> >>>> (yesterday) there was a proposal to provide at least 30 minutes as
>> >>>> part of Session 8 (see
>> >>>> http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/fourth-meeting-agenda/#Session8)
>> >>>> for discussion on the subject of ARML 2.0. Your name does not
>> >>>> appear on the page but this was specifically put on the second day
>> >>>> to ensure that the discussion includes appropriate participants.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Regards,
>> >>>> Christine
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Spime Wrangler
>> >>>>
>> >>>> cperey@perey.com
>> >>>> mobile +41 79 436 6869
>> >>>> VoIP +1 (617) 848-8159
>> >>>> Skype Christine_Perey
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 9/16/11 12:47 AM, Blair MacIntyre wrote:
>> >>>>> I will be there the second day, but I wasn't aware I was presenting anything … we have a paper on Argon and KARML in the main conference, but that's only "useful" to those attending (and there, we'll focus on the research side, not the standards side).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:24 PM, ya knygar wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> @Rob
>> >>>>>>> and I'm hoping Lars will do too.
>> >>>>>> excuse me, who is Lars?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> anyway - great,
>> >>>>>> i think - Blair MacIntyre would also represent the Web standards view on AR,
>> >>>>>> could you name the subject of your presentation?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Rob Manson<roBman@mob-labs.com>  wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Well I'll be covering the work of those other groups in my presentation
>> >>>>>>> and I'm hoping Lars will do too.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> roBman
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 16:45 +0200, Christine Perey wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> This integrative work is precisely one of the purposes of the AR
>> >>>>>>>> standards community.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> But, it only works when/to the extent that people want it to.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Gentle reminder that the next meeting is Oct 24-25 in Basel.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The OGC ARML activity will be topic of a presentation and discussion,
>> >>>>>>>> but the other groups which Rob mentions (W3C DAP, W3C Web RTC, W3C
>> >>>>>>>> Audio WG) are not on the agenda...
>> >>>>>>>> Christine
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Spime Wrangler
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> cperey@perey.com
>> >>>>>>>> mobile +41 79 436 6869
>> >>>>>>>> VoIP +1 (617) 848-8159
>> >>>>>>>> Skype Christine_Perey
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 9/15/11 2:58 PM, Rob Manson wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> I think ya knygar raises a very interesting point for you Martin and the
>> >>>>>>>>> OGC too.  How do you see this relating to all the work already under way
>> >>>>>>>>> for web based AR standards development.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I mean how would this integrate with the Declarative 3D work?
>> >>>>>>>>> Or the POI WG work?
>> >>>>>>>>> Or the DAP and Web RTC work?
>> >>>>>>>>> Or the Audio WG work?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> And how would this integrate or leverage the StreamInput work that
>> >>>>>>>>> Khronos are starting?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I'm all for standards...but I think before we head into another set of
>> >>>>>>>>> weeds I'd really like to see our overall community doing more
>> >>>>>>>>> integrative work.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> roBman
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 12:29 +0000, ya knygar wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello Martin Lechner!
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I strongly disagree that AR standards are still not required.
>> >>>>>>>>>> i don't see any soul here - with ignorance for IT standards,
>> >>>>>>>>>> i think what Blair MacIntyre - the developer of another useful AR
>> >>>>>>>>>> standard - exactly mean:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Given that a vast amount of what would be "in" an ARML or KARML data stream, there is absolutely no chance any of them will be compatible with each other any time soon, so why not work on the big issues before going down into the weeds?...
>> >>>>>>>>>>> to work together to be compatible where we agree, and go our own way when we don't, and then see things evolve basic on real people actually
>> >>>>>>>>>> doing things with the various browser and so on.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that - while the "Web Story" is a little bit different from the "AR Story" - it still makes a good "reference story".
>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Following your context -- do you envision some AR Net rather than
>> >>>>>>>>>> functioning only in the standards defined - Web?
>> >>>>>>>>>> (given the currently strong approach on standardization of "Device
>> >>>>>>>>>> API's", i mean - at least 3 serious groups - working for the 'next'
>> >>>>>>>>>> Web)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Do you think it is 'Ok' to make some other consortium and move
>> >>>>>>>>>> separately from the current W3C governance?
>> >>>>>>>>>> (like WHATWG did, for example)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Could you, please, elaborate on the differences where are the good
>> >>>>>>>>>> old, decentralized
>> >>>>>>>>>> "World Wide Web (WWW, or simply Web)" as "an information space in
>> >>>>>>>>>> which the items of interest, referred to as resources, are identified
>> >>>>>>>>>> by global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)."
>> >>>>>>>>>> model does not fit / where it fits in your opinion?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I'd like to invite everyone (as in *EVERYONE*) to work within the ARML 2.0 SWG
>> >>>>>>>>>> do you plan an open mailing list or forum during the development of proposition,
>> >>>>>>>>>>   so people - who aren't the members of OGC for one or another reason
>> >>>>>>>>>> - would be able to contribute/etc. into the standard formation - in other way?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> sincerely,
>> >>>>>>>>>> knygar
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 2011/9/15 Martin Lechner<martin.lechner@wikitude.com>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Blair, Carl, Rob et al.!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> While I do agree that AR is not used by masses of people yet, I strongly
>> >>>>>>>>>>> disagree that AR standards are still not required. In my opinion, a standard
>> >>>>>>>>>>> the AR community agrees on will help the industry grow significantly, if (as
>> >>>>>>>>>>> in *IF*) the standard takes into account that it will require extension in
>> >>>>>>>>>>> the future. Still, we all know that AR applications are out for quite some
>> >>>>>>>>>>> time now (with a lot more to come every week), and I guess all of us will
>> >>>>>>>>>>> agree that they all have significant overlaps in their functionalities. As
>> >>>>>>>>>>> far as I'm concerned, this already justifies working on a standard for AR.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Figure how HTML was created - it started out with a couple of tags, and I'm
>> >>>>>>>>>>> pretty sure Tim did not know precisely how the Web will be shaped in the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> future. Yet, it was extensible, and turned out to be successful. I think
>> >>>>>>>>>>> that - while the "Web Story" is a little bit different from the "AR Story" -
>> >>>>>>>>>>> it still makes a good "reference story".
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion, it's about getting things started, allowing the AR industry
>> >>>>>>>>>>> to agree on a standard, while still not closing doors for extending the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> standard. It will be one of the key topics in the ARML 2.0 SWG where we need
>> >>>>>>>>>>> to ensure that future AR requirements can be met (by adding new components
>> >>>>>>>>>>> to the standard), I keep thinking about a component model where various
>> >>>>>>>>>>> components can connect with the existing ones.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Once again, I'd like to invite everyone (as in *EVERYONE*) to work within
>> >>>>>>>>>>> the ARML 2.0 SWG to define an AR standard within the OGC. You guys at GA
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tech could certainly contribute a lot to the success of the SWG, so in case
>> >>>>>>>>>>> you are still interested, we will kick-off the ARML 2.0 SWG in the OGC TC
>> >>>>>>>>>>> meeting in Boulder on Monday, Sept. 19th. Whoever wants to join and get
>> >>>>>>>>>>> involved in the SWG is invited!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.2011 15:26, schrieb Blair MacIntyre:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Rob;  if you have a larger list of efforts, it would have
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> been more useful to include them, rather than making it appear quite so
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "wikitude-centric".  Folks will be far more interested in contributing if it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be more inclusive;  as it stands, the document feels a bit to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> focused on your company, which won't serve you well.  Witness my reaction.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ;)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We'll be happy to discuss the directions we are going to be going this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> year with KARML;  the current implemented version touches on some of what
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> you are going after, and our plans for Argon for this year touch on much of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Georgia Tech is not a member of OGC as far as I can tell, so our
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> involvement won't be "formal".
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just so you know, I feel that this effort is premature;  I find it ironic
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that you are taking KML (a "standard" that evolved from a widely used
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> defector standard into something more formal only after it was proven to be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> useful), and using it as the basis for a "design before we really know what
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> people will use" standard.   I use "we" inclusively:  I don't think any of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> us (including researchers like me) really _know_ what needs to be in these
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> standards and tools, since AR is still not being used by very many people
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> for very many things, and certainly not in the architectural scenario these
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> standards will impact.   There are some things that can be standardized,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps (e.g., some of the ARML 1.0 things, which we've taken further in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> KARML, like extending ideas of location reference beyond LLA).  But when you
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> start talking about "events" I get nervous.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd much rather see an informal effort by those of us (you at wikitude, my
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> team, perhaps others) who are actually building on top of KML and building
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> javascript libraries for AR, to work together to be compatible where we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> agree, and go our own way when we don't, and then see things evolve basic on
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> real people actually doing things with the various browser and so on.  Given
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that a vast amount of what would be "in" an ARML or KARML data stream, there
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is absolutely no chance any of them will be compatible with each other any
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> time soon, so why not work on the big issues before going down into the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> weeds?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 4, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Martin Lechner wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob, hi Blair!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have a list of other standards/efforts we will include in the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> charter prior to the startup of the SWG, and KARML is on the list already,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> along with others. The revised list will be published in an updated charter
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> document after the public comment-period. I agree that KARML is valuable
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution towards an AR standard.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As a general "Call for Participation", I would love to have
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> representatives from other institutions which proposed AR standards in the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> SWG, it would be great to have you on board. However, as far as I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> understood, you need to be OGC member to work within an SWG, this is a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> formal requirement.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In case you consider joining OGC to work within the SWG, highly
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciated - I think Carl is the one to talk to about it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Lechner
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CTO
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikitude GmbH.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +43 (0)676 840 856 300
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> martin.lechner@wikitude.com
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are catching me underway ... On my iPhone!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04.09.2011, at 14:09, Rob Manson<roBman@mob-labs.com>   wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think those are fair questions that hopefully Martin or even Carl,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steven or any of the OGC people on the list here could address.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> roBman
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 07:57 -0400, Blair MacIntyre wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting.  How do we comment on it if we aren't OGC members?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, the complete lack of any mention of our work on KARML is a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit surprising (if only in the "other know efforts" section), considering
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more mature than either ARML or ARchitect, is well documented on our
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> website, and has a fully working implementation in the iTunes app store
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Argon).  And, of course, since I know they know about Argon and KARML, it's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly an intentional omission.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I realize their bias is toward their own commercial interests, it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would seem to undermine the position of OGC as a standards organization to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a small group of people leverage them as a platform to promote their
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commercial product.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 4, 2011, at 4:07 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a publicly accessible link.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=45439
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Carl/Steven.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roBman
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 00:27 +1000, Rob Manson wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cross posting this from the AR-UX list as I think many will find it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting/relevant.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Augmented Reality Markup Language (ARML) Standards Working Group
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       being formed. Draft charter available for review/comment if
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       you're an Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) member.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Please address any comments or questions to Martin Lechner -
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       martin.lechner@wikitude.com This is the start of a 3 week review
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       period. After this period, Carl Reed [OGC CTO] will do a formal
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       call for participation. Also, if your organisation wishes to be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       represented as a Charter member of this new Standards Working
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Group (SWG), please let Martin and Carl know.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       I realise a number of you are not and may never be members of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       the OGC, so this is just some market information for you. Any
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       resulting standards from the OGC are freely available.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=730135900&gid=3844396&type=member&item=67968411&articleURL=https%3A%2F%2Fportal%2Eopengeospatial%2Eorg%2Ffiles%2F%3Fartifact_id%3D45285%26version%3D1&urlhash=1ywF&goback=%2Egde_3844396_member_67968411
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       /via Steven Ramage @ OGC
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roBman
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>> - - -
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Martin Lechner
>> >>>>>>>>>>> CTO
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wikitude GmbH
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ginzkeyplatz 11
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 5020 Salzburg/Austria
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Phone +43 662 243310
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mobile +43 676 840 856 300
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wikitude.com
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >> --
>> >> - - -
>> >> Martin Lechner
>> >> CTO
>> >>
>> >> Wikitude GmbH
>> >> Ginzkeyplatz 11
>> >> 5020 Salzburg/Austria
>> >> Phone +43 662 243310
>> >> Mobile +43 676 840 856 300
>> >>
>> >> http://www.wikitude.com
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Discussion mailing list
>> >> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discussion mailing list
>> > Discussion@arstandards.org
>> > http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@arstandards.org
> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
Received on Sunday, 25 September 2011 01:54:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 25 September 2011 01:54:09 GMT