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: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:00:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJVWO9ayMxn_wX40UKCftsRuDk9h3CPhdgpgEOSPCh1z0uZhQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: creed@opengeospatial.org, Martin Lechner <martin.lechner@wikitude.com>
Cc: discussion@arstandards.org, AR CG <public-ar@w3.org>
@Carl Reed

> OGC, the W3C, OASIS
> ISO, IEEE, IETF, OMA
> The OGC is as open or more open than most.

first of all i need to add that i respect the OGC and i'v heard only
good of it's achievements (along with OSGeo BTW), from the GIS
specialists i know.
OGC isn't selling the access to it's standards, and make the
considerably open standards, as for me.
I'v read in local articles that work of OGC could be compared to the W3C..

I'll explain my opinion
(i honestly try to explain my opinion as i could, i do my best to make
it shorter):

I know that GIS (i'll name it all just as GIS), at least in my area
and some Western countries that i know about - is often surrounded by
the various 'kinds' of money.
It is constantly in the scope of the interest by the many, really many
and various businesses, including governmental.
Now, with AR promises - it would be even more than ever.

By this - i have no doubts that open standards that OGC produces is a
huge deal for this 'big moneys' area of interest and i have no doubts
about importance of OGC work that is going in a complex and by "highly
profitable" -- highly competitive environment that often shows that
competing on open standards is.. a new and complex idea.
Now I see that  -  you are successfully producing the open standards
that fit both the initiators and their open market competitors, so..
Thank you for your good work!

What i doubt about - is the openness of OGC infrastructure for 'AR
people' i know,

i mean - openness to the people like these which are AR developers, by
this - could contribute to the serious AR standards, but for some
reason - don't want to became the OGC member.

For example:
I look at
- http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/faq/process

I see:
"OGC provides fast-paced standard development and promotion of
standards adoption, similar to other industry standards consortia such
as W3C, IETF.."

I want to contribute to the standards creation just like i could now,
on these W3C, IETF ... and i can't.

I think Co-Chair Jonathan Jeon will, as ETRI seems like - have the OGC
membership.
But myself, Rob Manson, Damon Oehlman and some other current members -
seems like - would need to became a paid members just to work on this
one - AR standard.

I know 'GIS people' that leave in communities without using the
'standard' money at all!
They are participating successfully in the W3C process (even old --
pre-CG's) and they aren't able to participate in OGC process.

That is why i mentioned the "wide W3C"  'community'.

So, i have said in my previous message:
- there is a positive example from W3C -- CG's,
- there is the positive example from all the IETF
-- both accept anyone interested for free
and both - are productive with such a scheme.


> I see the AR standards forum as
> providing the opportunity to insure that the various stakeholders,
> including standards organizations, work together to create an integrated
> and interoperable AR standards stack.


I don't see the problem in the place as far as it is open to observe.
I see the problem in the infrastructure of AR standard(s) development
that could be formed around closed forums/lists/chats with some
'leaks' when 'the time is come', even if you would post the daily or
weekly results..
   isn't it - not worth the deal of trying to maintain the two
collaboration places, rather than - just work on the existing W3C
places to ensure that the AR web standard (and that is web standard as
there was described, isn't it?) - would be developed by the W3C
community at large and OGC as the best GIS professionals that
consult/help there?

You see.. when you see -- the 3+ places of the serious Web related
work that kind of - resembling if not - competing with each other..
isn't it - the situation where you know -- the WWW Consortium needs
your actual help - to keep the One Open Web platform development - in
one open, and what is also important -- usual to look into, public
place?

I'm sure - there are countries where almost nobody have heard of OGC,
without an OGC members at all, but there are people and even web
developers that do know about Web, W3C and even 'Augmented Reality'
conceptions.

I don't know enough about OGC processes to say that it would actually
be - like this, but i do have the opinion that it is better to
construct such an important web technologies in the W3C, and OGC, as
i'v described in that message -- could with some bit of bureaucracy
worry - try to work productively (i even think - OGC has helped the
W3C on their field, no?),
 at least for this case to try, to evaluate the possibility - in the
W3C facilities, as they are the proper place - given the status of
standard, even if it isn't A.R.M.L.

I could argue expressively about the importance of every single Web
Standard, but should i?
I suggest here - to save our time by involving the wide W3C community
and provide the wide, deserved feedback for the Web AR standards
development, given their high complexity and importance..
just like the Web3D Consortium did.
---

Any opinions from the @communities?
@Wikitude?



On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Anita Havele <anita.havele@web3d.org> wrote:
> Carl, I agree with your point that there will not be a single AR standard.
>
>
>
> AR is a mix of both 2D imagery, 3D graphics, the real world and the virtual
> world. The future consumer demand for AR applications will go beyond the
> current use of geo-located points of interest. The Web3D Consortium is
> working on new paradigms to develop standards that address the larger 2D +
> 3D space for AR applications. Currently the Consortium is  harmonizing
> proven capabilities into best practices for AR and 3D graphics.
>
>
>
> Our collaboration with OGC will continue to provide interoperability with
> OGC and Web3D standards for AR capabilities too. The Consortium is also
> working closely within W3C WGs to align our standards for 3D visualization
> on the Web.
>
> The W3C Declarative 3D effort has strategic importance for Web3D and indeed
> for all 3D graphics, especially since X3D is already a portable interchange
> format for a wide variety of models and technical approaches. We intend to
> establish a solid foundation for X3D to properly support 3D graphics for the
> native Web page, which includes enhancements for AR capabilities and
> experiences.
>
>
>
> Also, the ISO Standards Committee (SC24) which administers X3D review as an
> International Standard has established a new Working Group for Augmented and
> Mixed Reality. The group proposes an AR content model as an extension of a
> virtual world with provisions for representing the physically-sensed
> objects.
>
>
>
> Each of these standards has their area of expertise and we need to leverage
> that expertise. The AR Standards group's efforts in bringing these players
> together has certainly helped in open discussions.
>
>
>
> Numerous innovative AR activities are ongoing by many researchers,
> companies, and standards groups. As we achieve clarity on the larger
> strategy for AR, we plan to outreach and collaborate with these groups in
> establishing an integrated  and interoperable AR standards stack. We look
> forward to further participation and collaboration by the AR community to
> achieve long-term success for AR content on the Web.
>
>
>
> A position paper on the AR roadmap for X3D will be presented at the AR
> Standards Group meeting in Basel.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to meeting you all at this meeting!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Anita
>
> ---
>
> Anita Havele
>
> Executive Director, Web3D Consortium   www.web3d.org
>
> Phone: +1 248 342 7662
>
> Fax: +1 248 457 8018
>
> Skype: anita.havele
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: public-ar-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ar-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>> Of
>
>> creed@opengeospatial.org
>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:59 AM
>
>> To: ya knygar
>
>> Cc: Martin Lechner; discussion@arstandards.org; AR CG
>
>> Subject: Re: [AR Standards Discussion] ARML Standards Working Group being
>> formed
>
>> through OGC (available for comment)
>
>>
>
>> Well, I have to make a statement WRT your statement regarding the OGC: OGC
>
>> infrastructure isn't open enough to ensure the proper acceptance from the
>
>> wide W3C 'community'
>
>>
>
>> Well, the OGC, the W3C, OASIS and other organizations are all what are
>
>> termed as voluntary consensus standards organizations. Our respective
>
>> policies and procedures are all a bit different but at the end of the day
>
>> all three of these organizations have the goal of developing consensus
>
>> community standards that are royalty free and available on a
>
>> non-discriminatory basis. I work standards activities in all 3 as well as
>
>> ISO, IEEE, IETF, OMA, and other organizations. The OGC is as open or more
>
>> open than most.
>
>>
>
>> Further, the work of the OGC is focused on standards that enable
>
>> interoperability of geospatial content and services. While the W3C and its
>
>> Members have considerable knowledge and expertise in many web related
>
>> standards activities, geography/location is not one of those areas of W3C
>
>> expertise. Geography/location and its application in the design and
>
>> development of standards is the expertise domain of the OGC. This is why
>
>> we collaborate with many other standards organizations, including the W3C,
>
>> that have a requirement to encode or express location in their standards
>
>> activities. Conversely, the OGC community also requires input from other
>
>> communities to insure our standards work with or comply with a variety of
>
>> other international standards.
>
>>
>
>> Development of the AR standards stake will require collaboration between
>
>> and among multiple standards organizations. Each organization has an area
>
>> of expertise and we need to leverage that expertise.
>
>>
>
>> The OGC ARML activity (to be renamed) will - from what I understand -
>
>> focus on the location elements as extensions to KML to meet a specific set
>
>> of AR requirements. Such work will integrate into the overall AR standards
>
>> stack that will evolve over time. I see the AR standards forum as
>
>> providing the opportunity to insure that the various stakeholders,
>
>> including standards organizations, work together to create an integrated
>
>> and interoperable AR standards stack. There will not be a single AR
>
>> standard. That would be silly :-)
>
>>
>
>> Oh yes, Kronos StreamInput is about defining an API that will allow access
>
>> and fusion operations of the on-board sensors on a smart phone. These low
>
>> level APIs can in turn be wrapped in higher level, application level
>
>> standards interfaces such as the OGC Sensor Observation Service and the
>
>> payloads encoded using ISO/OGC Observations and Measurements.
>
>>
>
>> My late night missive after traveling for 40 hours to get to KL from
>> Denver.
>
>>
>
>> Regards
>
>>
>
>> Carl Reed, PhD
>
>> CTO
>
>> OGC
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> > @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.
>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Â
>
>> >>> 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.
>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â
>
>> >>>
>
>>
>> http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=730135900&gid=3844396&typ
>
>> e=member&item=67968411&articleURL=https%3A%2F%2Fportal%2Eopengeospatial%2
>
>> Eorg%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
>
>> >>
>
>> > _______________________________________________
>
>> > 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 Tuesday, 27 September 2011 23:03:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 September 2011 23:03:36 GMT