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: Martin Lechner <martin.lechner@wikitude.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:18:31 +0100
Message-ID: <50C84BE7.70901@wikitude.com>
To: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
CC: OGC George Percivall <gpercivall@opengeospatial.org>, discussion@arstandards.org, public-ar@w3.org
Hi Rob, George, et.al!

sorry for following up a little late here.
Rob, good to see that there's consolidated movement also within the W3C 
Community Group now, and that you're taking the lead here!

My opinion on how ARML2 [1] relates to the W3C Community Group:
While you are right that ARML2 does not have a native implementation in 
a browser yet, our prototype-AR Window implementation [1] shows that it 
can be implemented in a web browsers plugin-free with web technologies 
such as WebGL and the various JS APIs, such as GeoLocation and 
DeviceOrientation for the spatial part. The ComputerVision-Part can also 
be implemented plugin-free and solely in JS, as described by a paper of 
TU Graz [2].

ARML2 can be seen as the language describing the AR scene, which is 
complementary to and uses the APIs the browsers expose. In fact, it 
takes a JS library to make ARML2 webbrowser-compliant, rather than a 
native implementation in the browser (which of course might bring a 
certain speedup eventually, especially in the CV part).
So, to summarize, I ask to include ARML2 in the discussion, and not 
cross it off the list because it does not yet run in a native browser. 
I'm happy to give more insight on request.


[1] - http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/arml2.0swg
[2] - 
or http://www.wikitude.com/wikitude-lab-takes-augmented-reality-web
[3] - 

Am 01.12.2012 05:28, schrieb Rob Manson:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@arstandards.org
> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

- - -
Martin Lechner

Wikitude GmbH
Ginzkeyplatz 11
5020 Salzburg/Austria
Phone +43 662 243310
Mobile +43 676 840 856 300

Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 09:19:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:54 UTC