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

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

From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:44:33 +1000
To: Philipp Slusallek <slusallek@cs.uni-saarland.de>
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>
Message-ID: <1314013473.31109.1222.camel@robslapu>
Hi Philipp,

I think we're on the same page.  If something substantive comes out of
the group there's nothing precluding it leading to a standards
track...but the initial goal is more communication I believe.

Personally I think we will soon have all the tools we need for a Web
Based AR, if the current standards/APIs mature as it looks like they
will.  So I'm not proposing anything new...just trying to call out
related requirements that will ensure these standards/APIs are useful
for us as they develop.  This includes declarative 3d too 8)


roBman


On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 19:36 +0200, Philipp Slusallek wrote:
> 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 Monday, 22 August 2011 11:45:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 August 2011 11:45:02 GMT