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

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

From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:29:43 +1100
Message-ID: <50B16677.2030402@mob-labs.com>
To: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>
CC: discussion@arstandards.org, public-ar@w3.org
Hi Carl,

thanks for the feedback.

I think a key benefit of the W3C CG's are that they're not designed to 
create or define standards...just encourage collaboration and discussion.

However there is already a lot of standards/API work going on within the 
W3C that will directly impact the Augmented Web...but currently almost 
none of these are taking Augmented Web Use Cases into account.  Working 
within this existing community is clearly the best way to ifluence that.

As for the W3C POI WG...I was an Invited Expert within that group and 
contributed a lot of effort myself so I'm well aware of what went on and 
certainly have my own opinion on why this didn't get any real traction 8)


On 25/11/12 03:49, Carl Reed wrote:
> Interesting and thanks for the clarification. I do share Christine's
> concern that there is yet another standards organization that we will
> need to coordinate with WRT AR. I will read the proposed charter and
> provide comments. The key thing we want to avoid is standards work
> overlap between different SDO's. Each new (or revision to existing)
> standard should have a well defined set of requirements that allow us to
> correctly position each standard in the AR standards stack - while also
> insuring seamless content flow through the stack.
> As you know, but did not list, there are also AR activities happening in
> OMA, JTC1, and various related ISO SC's.
> The OGC has been involved in a number of W3C incubator and standards
> activities. A recent standards activity, Point of Interest, "died on the
> vine" after 2 years of work. Raj can provide insight as to why the
> effort failed, but I believe that the W3C was the wrong standards venue
> for PoI. TC 211 or TC 204 (telematics) or the OGC would have been more
> appropriate as those venues have the necessary member knowledge,
> expertize, and volunteerism necessary to complete the work.
> Cheers
> Carl
> -----Original Message----- From: Rob Manson
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 2:53 AM
> To: discussion@arstandards.org
> Subject: Re: [AR Standards Discussion] I've created a Related Standards
> pagefor the group
> Hi Christine,
>> I think it is FANTASTIC that you are taking the leadership role in
>> gathering information and documenting how Web standards are being used
>> for open AR!  Thank you for presenting this during the most recent
>> AR Standards Community meeting.
>> http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/seventh-ar-standards-community-meeting/
> Thanks...lots more to come 8)
>> What I *fail to understand*, and I hope you will not hesitate to
>> explain, is *why you feel that a separate activity/group is necessary or
>> beneficial* in order to further the work you are doing/have done.
> Sure...happy to share my motivations.
>> 1. Will this not run the risk of fragmenting the community and run
>> contrary to the goals of all the community members?
> I don't believe so.  This would be like saying the OGC's ARML activity
> is fragmenting the ARStandards.org work too...which I don't believe is
> the case.
> I think that while the Augmented Web is very closely related to
> ARStandards.org's work, there are a number of ways it is significantly
> different.  And since the Augmented Web is focused on the Web then the
> W3C is the natural home for a large part of this discussion...just like
> it is for the Declarative 3D Community Group, etc.
> But this does not mean it should not involve ARStandards.org as well and
> the activities of the two are not mutually exclusive.  In fact I hope
> they will really benefit each other.
>> 2. How are your objectives and methods different than those that you
>> have supported thus far in the AR Standards Community?
> I think the new charter that I've proposed makes a good start at
> clarifying this and I intend to do a lot more work to develop this further.
> The key point is that this group is focused on the intersection of AR
> and the Web and I believe that this is a new generation of the web - the
> Augmented Web.  As the charter states:
>    "This group does not specifically aim to establish
>     or define any new standards itself".
> So there are many things that the ARStandards.org community will discuss
> that do not directly relate to the Augmented Web.  And in reverse there
> are specifically Web related topics that the Augmented Web group will
> discuss that many within the ARStandards.org community may see as a
> distraction.
> Where sensible I definitely intend to encourage collaboration and
> overlap.  But it just makes sense for the Augmented Web community to
> have it's own home and focus too.
>> 3. Can we make room for your initiative within AR Standards Community?
> I would hope that the Augmented Web community can take up the mantle of
> representing the W3C's standards and developments at the ARStandards.org
> meetings as it has been very apparent at recent meetings that this type
> of representation is clearly missing.  As the charter also states we aim
> to:
>    "build an integrated community voice that reaches out
>     to all of the other relevant working groups and standards
>     bodies to ensure that the Augmented Web perspective is
>     clearly represented and considered".
> I would see collaborating through ARStandards.org as a key part of
> this...along with engaging with the specific W3C, IETF and Khronos
> Working Groups along with the WHATWG.
>> 4. Would it, in parallel if you prefer, be possible for the topic of Web
>> Standards to also be discussed on the AR Standards Community mailing
>> list and during future community meetings?
> I think cross posting makes good sense in a lot of cases and I'm happy
> to take charge of that if you would like this.  But there are also
> things that the Augmented Web community should be discussing that are
> not just standards related and I think many people on the
> ARStandards.org discussion list may see this as irrelevant or a
> distraction.  This was also an important consideration when I decided to
> take on this activity.
>> Great to compile the standards you see as being most important. I also
>> highly encourage you to examine and compare the following two pages:
>> http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/existing-standards/
>> http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/standards-activities-underway/
>> When I have a moment I will assist the AR Standards Community and your
>> activities by identifying those standards which you have identified on
>> the new page and that may be missing from the above pages we maintain.
> I think it would make the most sense for you to just refer to the
> "Related Standards" page on the Augmented Web Group's site
> (http://www.w3.org/community/ar/related-standards/) as this is a fast
> moving area and replicating this content doesn't seem sensible or
> feasible with the limited resources we all have.
> Of course you're free to copy this content if you want to but this will
> obviously need to be done with the W3C CLA in mind
> (http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/) and with relevant
> attribution too.
> Personally I think this is just a healthy sign that the community is
> maturing and the activities on a number of fronts are developing more
> momentum 8)
> ARStandards.org is even more relevant now as a broad cross SDO
> discussion forum.  And the W3C AR Community Group will aim to build a
> strong voice that clearly represents the Augmented Web perspective
> within that discussion.
> roBman
> Ref: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ar/2012Nov/0003.html
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@arstandards.org
> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2012 00:30:06 UTC

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