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: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:44:59 +0100
Message-ID: <50E1508B.9080004@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,

works for me, thanks.
Please also link to the SWG public page 
(http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/arml2.0swg), it links to 
the current spec.

Best,
Martin


Am 28.12.2012 03:05, schrieb Rob Manson:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I understand what you're saying but my point was that there are no 
> publicly available js libs that implement ARML2 at the moment which is 
> why I thought it didn't qualify "at the moment".
>
> How about I make this compromise.  I'll add a footnote about ARML2 and 
> link to your blog post on your "prototype-AR Window implementation".
>
> Hope that works for everyone.
>
> roBman
>
>
> On 12/12/12 20:18, Martin Lechner wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Martin
>>
>> [1] - http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/arml2.0swg
>> [2] -
>> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/16/wikitude-takes-its-augmented-reality-beyond-apps-and-direct-to-the-mobile-web/ 
>>
>> or http://www.wikitude.com/wikitude-lab-takes-augmented-reality-web
>> [3] -
>> http://icg.tugraz.at/publications/natural-feature-tracking-in-javascript/at_download/file 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
CTO

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

http://www.wikitude.com
Received on Monday, 31 December 2012 08:45:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 December 2012 08:45:31 GMT