W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-declarative3d@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [AR Standards Discussion] Getting started with the W3C AR Community Group

From: Philipp Slusallek <slusallek@cs.uni-saarland.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:36:35 +0200
Message-ID: <4E514223.8030601@cs.uni-saarland.de>
To: roBman@mob-labs.com
CC: public-ar@w3.org, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>, "public-declarative3d@w3.org" <public-declarative3d@w3.org>
Hi,

I think I agree with you. However, the goal of the Community Groups (at
least to the degree that we understand it at the  Declarative 3D CG) is
that we are preparing a possible later standardization. Thus starting
the discussion, clarifying what needs standardization, what options are
available, what are relevant use cases (and which are not!), etc.

Given that we already have two fairly similar implementations of Dec3D
(proposed acronym) within the browser (XML3D & X3DOM), we may be in a
different position, though.

Best,

	Philipp

Am 20.08.2011 16:40, schrieb Rob Manson:
> I'm not sure where the discussion around defining a specific
> implementation comes from.  Personally, I've never proposed that in any
> way and the points both Blair and Thomas make about this seem logical
> and obvious to me so +1 to that.
> 
> If this is because of the initial description of the W3C AR Community
> Group then that's really just an artefact of the setup process and I
> think we should refine this to match exactly the points that have been
> raised.
> 
> As for an "all encompassing" Web AR standard...or "any standard" coming
> out of the W3C AR Community Group...I don't think this is the goal for
> these Community Groups at all.  They are not Working Groups.  As far as
> I'm aware they're a new tool for the W3C to encourage broader engagement
> with specific communities of interest.
> 
> However, I do think there is a lot of benefit to having a specific W3C
> Community Group focused on AR that can help draw a consistent thread
> through all the other Web Standards that are being defined.  From my
> experience each of the Working Groups are very busy and often get caught
> within their own silo of thinking.  
> 
> Giving AR a clearly defined voice within the W3C and helping it engage
> with the broader community just seems like a good idea to me.  I would
> hope that this would be a perfect fit for the Argon project and any
> other similar projects.
> 
> roBman
> 
> PS: I've only replied to the public-ar@w3.org, public-poi@w3.org and
> discussion@arstandards.org lists...so feel free to cross post your
> replies to other groups if you want.  But I really didn't aim to create
> a cross posting storm 8) I was just aiming to encourage engagement from
> some of the related groups.
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 08:43 -0400, Blair MacIntyre wrote:
>> I'd agree with Thomas here;  we clearly don't need yet another group
>> of people trying to solve the whole problem.
>>
>> As an example:  I obviously have an interest in the web spec, since
>> that's what we've been implicitly create as part of our Argon work;  I
>> would agree that the implementation is a completely separate issue, as
>> it's quite easy to imagine very different implementations of a browser
>> that render our channels.  
>>
>> BTW, I also think that there should NOT be an all-encompassing
>> standard;  building on other W3C standards where ever possible should
>> be a goal, I'd think.  For example, 3d data formats are separate, and
>> there is no need (at this point) to have a standard.  X3D has not
>> gained traction, and there may be other approaches that are lighter
>> and may be more suitable for a "baseline".  Similarly, 2D content
>> could be adequately handled by HTML5.  There are already working
>> efforts for video access, native code and local device access, and
>> other issues relevant to AR.  
>>
>> The real question, thus, is WHAT is AR-specific?  That's what the
>> group should focus on.  
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>>
>>> Id just point out, if you are focusing on Web-based AR, that thats an
>>> AR browser implementation solution - so you shouldn't also cover the
>>> standard for the data itself, as they are two very different things*.
>>>
>>> (Just as HTML specification specifies how html code should be
>>> displayed - it doesn't say what languages and technology's the browser
>>> should use to do that. Browsers can thus be coded in many languages,
>>> and use all sorts of techniques to display the same results. AR
>>> browsers should be the exact same).
>>>
>>> The discussion of the data standard and code to display that standard
>>> are thus two separate discussions, and the goal should be quite
>>> explicit on which it aims to do.
>>>
>>> [/2 cents]
>>>
>>> -Thomas
>>>
>>> * with the possibly exception of the 3D format, as web-based tech
>>> would limit that to certain types, while non web based browsers could
>>> support anything. Thus the non-ones should conform to the web standard
>>> 3D anyway. (which I think was more heavily towards being X3D - which
>>> as long as it serialises nicely I see no downside to using in any
>>> scenario). In either case, this would be a job for the data-standard to only
>>> choose formats both lisence free and suitable for web use.
>>>
>>> On 20 August 2011 04:43, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> the W3C AR Community Group has been established and is now open for
>>>> people to join.  Great work on proposing the group Ya Knygar.
>>>>
>>>> Now I think it would be good to make some clear plans about what the
>>>> goals of the group are and what the scope of our activities are.
>>>>
>>>> From my perspective this would simply be:
>>>>
>>>>        "The development of a Web Standards based model
>>>>        for Augmented Reality"
>>>>
>>>> If you have a proposal for an alternate goal/scope then please submit it
>>>> and we can run a poll to select what the group runs with.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I don't think this group is going to work if we just automatically
>>>> make everyone who joins a co-chair 8)  At the moment everyone who has
>>>> signed up has been made chair.  I'd rather see us first establish the
>>>> goals for the group, then run a poll to decide how the group will be
>>>> managed and who the chair/s are.  We don't need to be too formal...but a
>>>> little structure would be good I think.
>>>>
>>>> We will also need to clearly define how this groups is different from
>>>> the existing AR related groups that have formed already.  I think the
>>>> goal I've proposed above does that (e.g. focus solely on Web Based
>>>> AR) ...but more discussion is obviously required.
>>>>
>>>> So, please join the group and get involved in this important discussion.
>>>>
>>>>        http://www.w3.org/community/ar/
>>>>
>>>> There's a lot happening and a lot of APIs that will directly impact the
>>>> future of a Web Based AR are being defined right now. So now is the
>>>> perfect time to get this up and running.
>>>>
>>>> roBman
>>>>
>>>> PS: I've cc'd all the related groups I'm involved in to encourage anyone
>>>> with a stake in related technologies and APIs to join this group.
>>>>
>>>> PPS: I've also cc'd in the W3C Community people as I think this
>>>> discussion is as much about Community Group process as it is about the
>>>> content of our group.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discussion mailing list
>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>
>>
> 
> 


Received on Sunday, 21 August 2011 19:13:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 21 August 2011 19:13:49 GMT