W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ar@w3.org > December 2012

Re: [AR Standards Discussion] I've created a Related Standards pagefor the group

From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:28:25 +1100
Message-ID: <50B98769.1030100@mob-labs.com>
To: OGC George Percivall <gpercivall@opengeospatial.org>
CC: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>, discussion@arstandards.org, public-ar@w3.org
Hi George,

>>> Good to see AR discussion in W3C.
> ...unless its  a walled garden.
> You really do not plan to include ARML in "related standards".

Sorry if it appeared that way...that's definitely not the case.  I've 
added this content to the top of the Related Standards page to make it a 
little clearer.

   Here is an overview of the key standards that are enabling the
   Augmented Web.  The standards listed on this page are capable of
   running inside some version of a standard web browser from one of the
   mainstream web browser vendors today.

   NOTE: If you are interested in a broader set of Augmented Reality
         standards then please view the ARStandards.org list[1].

I hope this helps make sense of the difference between the 2 lists.


> ARML1 was discussed in a prior W3C AR workshop.

Nothing that happens in this CG mandates any particular action anywhere 
in the W3C.  So there's definitely no impact here.


> ARML2 is going through the OGC process for adoption as an OGC standard.
> The OGC process requires at least two or more commitments to implementation.

I'm sure that's the case and what I took away from discussions at the 
ARStandards meeting was that none of these had commenced yet or had real 
plans to in the short term.


> To not consider ARML2 in W3C seems to be a blind spot.

I'm sure the OGC will continue discussions with the W3C about the 
overlap between all of your standards.  As I said, this CG really 
doesn't have any impact on that.

And I hope it's now clear that I'm not "excluding" ARML...it's just that 
to be included on that Related Standards[2] page a standard must have a 
working implementation in a version of a mainstream web browser today.

This is not just some arbitrary decision.  This is directly related to 
the new Charter[3] and I hope that I've been really clear as to why this 
makes sense.

roBman

[1] http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/existing-standards/
[2] http://www.w3.org/community/ar/related-standards/
[3] http://www.w3.org/community/ar/wiki/Charter


> On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com
> <mailto:roBman@mob-labs.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi George,
>>
>>> Good to see AR discussion in W3C.  Enjoyed your paper at the AR
>>> Community meeting.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>> Suggest your list of AR standards should add ARML2.
>>
>> I was going to include it but it doesn't currently have any web
>> browsers that parse or support it.  So at the moment it can't
>> currently be classified as an Augmented Web related standard.
>>
>> The dynamic binding is closer and if somebody implemented a library
>> that makes this work within one of the mainstream web browsers then
>> that could change.  But for now I would classify it as an "AR
>> Standard" and not an "Augmented Web Standard".
>>
>> BTW: Have any of the AR Browser Vendors committed to implementing it?
>> From memory both Martin and Hafez said that they weren't yet working
>> on this.
>>
>>
>>> News about  POI WG:
>>> Ian Jacobs sent a mail to W3C members that the POI WG is closed as of
>>> September 2012, and that no further progress is foreseen. See
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2012JulSep/0061.html
>>> (member
>>> only).
>>> A "Places" community group
>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/places/> focusing on representing POI in
>>> microformats, RDF and JSON has been created. The Open Geospatial
>>> Consortium <http://www.opengeospatial.org/> is in the process of
>>> creating a standards working group to standardize the POI conceptual
>>> data model and XML encoding.
>>
>> Yep I saw the email about that on the POI WG mailing list.  If any
>> "Place/Location" based standards based on
>> microformats/microdata/RDF/JSON please let me know and I'll add that
>> to the Related Standards list.
>>
>> roBman
>
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2012 04:29:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 1 December 2012 04:29:55 GMT