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: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:32:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJVWO9Yt3O3yW8tHHtSdgD6n5vHEnD1BFwAUqeDRQ8Cn=b8Fcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: cperey@perey.com
Cc: roBman@mob-labs.com, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, AR CG <public-ar@w3.org>
@Rob
> Interestingly, I also think it's related to a key point in a link that
> Raj (from the OGC) posted to the POI WG list yesterday.
> http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/09/simple-weak-scalable-and-open-concepts-to-live-by-in-developing-new-solutions/

"Researchers in different disciplines are pushing for enhanced data
access and reuse to extend learning and make new discoveries.  A key
part of making this happen is ensuring that data sets are discoverable
through a uniform"

that article is related to the Semantic of the Web, which in order -
increasingly related to any modern Web standard, of-course, in our
case it relates to the semantic content, it seems. There are so many
interesting work for this now..

@All
particularly interesting that -- there are
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sciencenet systems
appear, based on self-hosted GPL, rather than on closed SaaS of
giants, that clearly shows the potential of such a systems to build
the core for the next Web, as you might know -- the good-old-Internet
for many countries - has began, even seamlessly crossing the elsewhere
closed USSR info-borders -- exactly from the researchers that were
trying to exchange the information and make the collaborative
discoveries that(by the done fact) were more important than
'governmental secrets' and even 'national security'.

As for GIS - there are, without a doubt, are so much to be done for
the openness for the ubiquitous usage, in our case - for the AR.

For one example that you might know:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Selective_Availability]
"...the US military had a feature called Selective Availability (SA)
that was causing a random timing
error in the GPS signals. This intentional miscalculation prevented
the commercial GPS devices from obtaining
accuracy any better than 30-100 meters. After 2nd of May 2000 the
feature was turned off and now average
accuracy is 10 meters outdoors..."

the interesting thing is
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Global_Positioning_System]
"...The executive order signed in 1996 to turn off Selective
Availability in 2000 was proposed by the US Secretary of Defense,
William Perry, because of the widespread growth of differential GPS
services to improve civilian accuracy and eliminate the US military
advantage. Moreover, the US military was actively developing
technologies to deny GPS service to potential adversaries on a
regional basis..."

~~~
as a bit of Open AR Community advertisement

I'll say once again here, now from another perspective:

That Selective Availability (SA) could rise once again - now in the
view of AR Point Clouds, now - not by the government and not for the
'national security'.

 Also - there is a need for the new self-regulated(regulated by
yourself, giving the command to the system) advertisement systems,
given the specific of AR and the current Web state, given it's
specific attractiveness for kids and media-corps.

We are actively working for the solutions, if there are
People/Companies/Governments that are willing to help or in other way
- fund what is needed for our advancement -- please, feel free to
contact me by email, i'll be glad to provide all the needed
information, explanation and inspiration.
~~~

For particularly Web Standards :

There is an article (also with clever gastronomical explanations) :

[http://tantek.com/2011/168/b1/practices-good-open-web-standards-development]
'10 Practices for Good Open Web Standards Development'

by Tantek Çelik
(one of the people behind the Open Web Foundation, by-the-way, so read
it carefully :)


"In the past many have compared standards to sausages, in that you
really don't want to know how they're made. That may have been true
twenty years ago, before the web, but no longer needs to be the
case..."

"...Besides, wouldn't you prefer a slice of organic home made apple
pie over industrial mystery meat sausage?"



@Christine

> One of the approaches to a scalable system (that is low cost but still
> permits developers to contribute in meaningful ways) is through the good old
> grass roots activities using Web and e-mail!

+1!

even so i often encourage the EtherPads and WYSIWYG MediaWiki's
(both GPL'd and still used by so much businesses, by-the-way),
that emailing if get used to - and backed by one of the above
- seems like a really proven and free (if host in foundations etc.)
choice.

However, i always insist on the nice full-text search for the archives,
so the knowledge get reusable, so the archives and the whole
list
 - serve their main functions.

It is the point where Perey AR Standards Community
still - needs to advance in order to get the
http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=&hdr-1-name=from&hdr-1-query=Christine+Perey&index-grp=Public_FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-ar
functionality.
Obviously - ARS community may advance without the current (GPL'd
by-the-way) setup,
on some third-party commercial service.. but it wouldn't be so appropriate
for the Reality Standards development organization, isn't it?

Well, i would insist for the Web standards
to be developed and gathered by communities into the W3C, like it is meant,
as i know.
The fact that there are so many businesses is often controversially
and, actually,
resembles the described in my previous post -- situation with the OGC.
The fact that there was such the W3C before -- as i think - just the
fact of absence
the combined FLOSS ERP and social networking systems.
 I have talked with
W3C staff about and i could argue. The situation showed that even
mighty mailing
lists and wiki's doesn't always provide the best results, in such a
hot environment.


> I think SDOs must continue to charge the pretty hefty membership fees in
> order to cover the costs of their staff, travel and the infrastructure
> (including but not limited to lawyers).

I think the SDO's is all different, one work by charging from one service,
other from all the possible, third - works by EU or USA funding etc.etc.
There are successful examples all the way.

>  face-to-face
> meetings where the topic of standards is addressed can have powerful
> results.

I hope the noble AR Developers would provide some 5D telepresence to
themselves, really soon =)

> When there are a variety of
> standards available for AR,

there are now.

> the SDOs will be coming to the community to

i disagree, the SDO's for some very specific area of interest
-- relates.

the SDO's that develops some Reality standards
-- should come from the Community, see all the latest
debates around W3C, for example - the HTML5 development.
Who think that there are better places for Web Standards development
than W3C?

> communicate about them and encourage adoption.

"communicate" when means - development -- of-course!

Adoption should be semi-automatic for the 'good' standards,
while the developers of them - write the articles, success stories
etc -- that is how it works now for the Web, as i see.
In the best cases the insightful specification, some good-enough
reference implementation and, for example,
 W3C authority -- works fully-automatic - for the Web.



On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com> wrote:
> One of the approaches to a scalable system (that is low cost but still
> permits developers to contribute in meaningful ways) is through the good old
> grass roots activities using Web and e-mail!
>
> The combined use of mailing lists (such as the AR Standards community
> discussion list but not limited to this one), publishing your detailed
> papers on the Web (for example  on www.arstandards.org) and face-to-face
> meetings where the topic of standards is addressed can have powerful
> results.
>
> A community permits us to pool the inputs from practical (applied)
> experience, to aggregate where you invest your time and, I expect we have a
> greater impact across multiple SDOs than a few developers paying dues to and
> joining in a few SDOs could have.
>
> I think SDOs must continue to charge the pretty hefty membership fees in
> order to cover the costs of their staff, travel and the infrastructure
> (including but not limited to lawyers). When there are a variety of
> standards available for AR, the SDOs will be coming to the community to
> communicate about them and encourage adoption. Once again a community
> (including developers) that is concerned with open and interoperable AR for
> maximum reach will be valuable to the vendors and SDOs.
>
>
> On 9/28/11 4:37 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree about the cost of participation being a barrier.
>> This is the same for the Khronos group too.
>>
>> It is a real time commitment to contribute to this ongoing standards
>> development.  And I would hope that people do recognise that nowadays
>> even people outside large corporations and academia (like myself) can
>> make a valuable contribution.
>>
>> But for a small development company or individual to then have to pay
>> for the ability to participate on top of the time investment is just not
>> something we can justify.  This is not a criticism...just a commercial
>> reality.
>>
>> It's your business model so you can obviously approach this however you
>> like...yet since Ya has raised this I do have to agree with his comments
>> on this point.
>>
>> Interestingly, I also think it's related to a key point in a link that
>> Raj (from the OGC) posted to the POI WG list yesterday.
>>
>> http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/09/simple-weak-scalable-and-open-concepts-to-live-by-in-developing-new-solutions/
>>
>> Broad engagement drives adoption.
>> Adoption drives scale.
>> Scale drives the success of a standard.
>>
>> roBman
i'v cut the message history spaghetti here :)
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 14:38:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 September 2011 14:38:42 GMT