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

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

From: ya knygar <knygar@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:52:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJVWO9Zwi2W0Ss8N2OyWpB0aGOLP=rF2HNahNR5qp6ReLh0nQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philipp Slusallek <slusallek@cs.uni-saarland.de>, "public-declarative3d@w3.org" <public-declarative3d@w3.org>, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, public-ar@w3.org, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, public-device-apis@w3.org, ian@hixie.ch
@Blair MacIntyre

> As an example, our reason for developing Argon is that we can't do what we need in a mobile AR browser yet;  but, our long term goal (since we are building on WebKit with custom javascript APIs) would be to have as much as possible of what we are doing folded into something like Webkit.

I'm glad that you are continue to work with WebKit,
as some time ago i'v tried to manage and gather the
group that would work for WebKit2 to be more AR compliant,
to evaluate the better possibilities.

First of all it was made for AR Web to have a FLOSS-agent on iOS,
possibly RIM devices and else.
As we have realized in process -- it is very hard to leverage
the level of customization, for end-users, that we are keen for future AR Web.

We'v decided that is - without making of some language to customize
the UI-UX from Apps,
making them "a first class citizens" - there won't be a competition
for Mozilla B2G proposition.

So - one man decided to work on WebKit,
and me, with the rest of the group - leaded to work for Mozilla's B2G
propositions as there are already XUL,
XBL, and other goods (for AR, as i see) that are increasingly evolving.

Given that situation -- i'm really glad that you are still working
towards WebKit (W3C i hope) AR Web implementations,
and aiming to push-back to WebKit community. Personally, i need to
say, that i'm not pro-Apple/Google or pro-Mozilla
when it comes to such a serious job. But work with Mozilla are
obviously easier now, and to be honest, we have decided,
ok, let's do the Mozilla based prototypes and when it comes - Google
or Apple would release the GPL'd AR WebKit anyway :)

> Now, there are also things we will do in Argon that won't be possible in a browser (given the current browser models), but even those will (hopefully) eventually make it into standard browsers.

i think if they (new API's) would be good, then - they would go
through W3C standardization and then -


> I think it's important to contextualize AR as "just one way of displaying information" that an app or website may want to leverage;  there shouldn't be "AR apps".  This can only happen when it's possible to create AR views and modes easily using the platforms and tools that are used for the other parts of the applications.

> Just as there are web-based applications, and native applications, so will there be AR modes for both of those architecture choices.

@Christine
Hello!

>With respect to the first statement, I would like to add that I am very concerned about fragmentation. Already some (many?) groups are suffering from lack of participation. Each organization must have a clear agenda and purpose. Otherwise it will not reach critical mass and its work will lack relevancy.

Given that Rob Manson is now the "core team" member (for Perey AR
Standards Community - core team consists of 3 people) of two
communities, i think
he'll lead the way to connect and forward the AR Standards work that
is related to W3C Web into this W3C AR CG,
and other work like non-Web related AR standards etc. would be
effectively discussed among these communities.

> Each organization must have a clear agenda and purpose. Otherwise it will not reach critical mass and its work will lack relevancy.

Certainly! i'v described to You, personally, and to AR Standards
community my view on perspectives and needs, already. This W3C AR CG
clearly - have the stated in it's description - purposes that i'v
briefly explained in the comment to
http://www.w3.org/community/ar/2011/08/20/getting-started-with-the-w3c-ar-community-group/

If people feel need to understand my formulation - better, i'd be glad
to explain and show the particular directions that i'm going towards
for succeed of that described W3C AR Web CG purposes.

As we see and as Rob mentioned - the people are leading towards the
fulfilling of particular needs in this CG.

As for purposes of AR Standards, well - it's up to You and Community,
obviously. You have enlisted enough of the points and doing the great
job for AR, i have noted it in AR CG and in AR S mailing lists, and,
even on ARWeb Community, if i recall correctly.

By that, i could only, respectfully, suggest:

AR Standards to particularly -

1. work towards Hardware Interfaces standardization, that is a great
mission to pursue, you'v written
the paper about, with AR Forum Community contributor (Yohan Baillot), as i know.

2. another grand mission, possibly for AR Standards is Health-care
standards for AR, given all these HMD and other AR interfaces that you
may work with, for standardization.
i'd help on these as much as i could as it is among personal interests
of mine life. I think the fundamental problem for AR and by that AR
Web to solve - is to discuss and advice as much as possible for the
rapid change in Human-Machine-Interfaces for them to be healthy, at
least for the generation of the current - young AR users. That is my
intention for "; developing the propositions for healthy conditions of
Augmented Reality use." of CG's description.
Even so i understood while i was proposing it that - it is kind of,
"where to suit it?" for W3C -- I am sure, that is an important enough
to be mentioned everywhere.

That all is directly for AR by that AR Standards, maybe AR Forum
communities. Work we are doing for W3C AR Web is essentially -  for
the next W3C Web that should be viewed Augmented-ly among other.

Given the situation that we, along with W3C, ended in a need of open
Hardware API's is just a part of the situation, we are trying to
solve,
by that -  AR Standards's possible work for Hardware Interfaces would
correlate with ours, but just - correlate as we hope - to gather the
"one step to"
emerging standards to use what market have or might have now.

> With respect to Blair's second statement, this goes even more widely than "just W3C". There cannot be (and we should not hint that there ever will be) a "universal" (all encompassing) standard for AR.

not at all, but there was, there could and there should be , i think,
a set of standards for W3C view on the Web, particularly AR-related
Web.
I'm working towards this, i hope the Chairs are also.

> As for the question (what is AR-specific?), people need to speak up in response to Rob's proposal. Setting the example, I say +1.
> In addition or alternatively, if you have a different opinion, please state it for others to consider.

There is Polls system here, for W3C CG's .. i'v already proposed to
use the inner tools that W3C provides (for a beginning) and i hope -
at least Chairs of respected organizations i hope -  would at least
use the direct and transparent quotation so it would be easier to
understand in the global Web community.

 I believe - we need to respect the people who are watching here(W3C)
and not are native English or even Latin kind of speakers. There are
many as i know. So i propose to respect it at-least with best you
could find - tools that ease the collaboration and conversation. There
is a big problem you might notice - that people from non-USA or non-EU
countries - doesn't collaborate as much as they could. I think they
doesn't - not because they can't - but because of inability to
understand and work with the difficult mailing-lists subordination,
reply system, etc.
 So, WordPress Polls system that is proposed to W3C CG seems,
obviously, better than +1 in mailing for me, we are(XCCC and folks)
working hard to propose a better system, but for now - if we'll have
the Important variants to decide on - we, i think, Should decide it by
transparent voting, W3C isn't Mozilla, in the end :)

 Since here is, now, a kind of "internal" "introduction" and
"broad-sense" discussion that won't lead to some concrete decisions
that will affect W3C AR CG, we may and i agree - let's use the +1,
 but even here, for the particular quotations, not to the whole and all.
Thank you, Christine, at least for using the clearly organized system
for mailing that may be understandable, though i don't see the big
need in "foot-numbers" for small messages.

> Thanks to Rob for his post a few minutes ago suggesting that W3C AR Community Group focus (exclusively?) on "within browser" [Philipp's (D) in the memo [1]].

Hm, i don't see that "within browser" helping W3C, there are already
within browsers, ARML and staff. W3C is for Open Web Platform,
open for all - proprietary and community/foundations made browsers.

By that we as W3C AR CG, by definition,  are focusing on all the Open
Web Platform, and for me it means - automatically - with the latest
initiatives
like P2P (http://WebRTC.org) or open and useful device API's
(http://www.w3.org/2009/DAP/) or personal, hopefully secure -
http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/ an other such kinds of W3C work. For
personal in advance look - i'm working for W3C FSW (even though it
doesn't function well now)
on http://freedomboxfoundation.org an other organization to ensure the
security and appropriate personal use of data, social networking and
other related to AR.

I need and i'm UP-ing the PROBLEM that if the AR would be treated like
the WWW now, the Advertisement would damage the children's mind, at
least.
As a rescue - i try to work with http://donottrack.us/ and other
possible technologies to provide the privacy, security along with
customizable Advertizing for future AR users. To describe - i see that
this Do Not Track(from the blog posts of developers) or kind of
features could, particularly help to distinguish the one Ads
experience for one user from another, without collecting the personal
information. And that, particularly, could save and make the enjoyable
AR experience for WWW users, at least.

@Thomas
> To be honest though, I think while there could (and probably cant) be
> a standard for overall AR, I think we could end up with a standard for
> geolocation information that is suitable for AR. (likely via W3C POI).

Let's wait and see, i'm watching with hope to your and Rob's work in W3C POI WG,

for
> a) Defining the data standard to store AR data. (that is, the physical
> links between real and virtual data, as well as a few
> standard/recommended formats for this data to be in).

 some time ago i have personally commented to you as i wasn't willing to start a
separate discussion on POI WG, or even - join it by any kind (there are already
many people in that group),
so - i'v written

"CityGML has 5 levels-of-detail

according to http://www.citygml.org/index.php?id=1539
search for

Single building in Level-of-Detail 4

(no 5 there at all)
it contains a kind of interior semantic

described:
http://www.iai.fzk.de/www-extern/fileadmin/Image_Archive/Bauwerke/Geo-Informationssysteme/Veroeffentlichungen/NextGeneration3DCityModels.pdf

also - here is - http://www.iai.fzk.de/www-extern/index.php?id=796&L=1
kind of scheme of what could be used..

it don't relate to relative coordination directly,
but system derived from that or that kind can be very helpful for AR
developers as they would know - where is the table and where is the wall
and relate robots and staff by it.
"

among other comments,

to describe it, i think that  - the clever kind of separation would
help many of the developers of AR,
these which develop it for robots, among the other.

I work towards (on the distributed private DB's level, with the
http://theFNF.org)
the separation of GIS data from Scanned Cloud but, actually - it may
not help the Problem,
anyway.

The Problem is - we should grant to AR Users the privacy and security
for their digitized homes and neighborhoods,
None - intrusive experience, but how we as AR developers, could grant
it if we would have the databases in proprietary
or even public use? Along with helping robots to scan it all? ..or
waiting while corporations robots - scan..

@ Christine

I think - you - with all your life experience could know the good
answer or directions, because as Perey Consulting you may consult the
proprietary Telco's to reach this AR data and Ads on Data "market" by
that you may thought of the right direction to solve the Problem.

That is, among other, an AR(not only Arkansas) Laws discussion and i
see it - from fundamental, philosophy side - as another great topic
for AR Standards Community.

That is the particular  topic i need to discuss for W3C AR Web future,
if you, Chairs of respected organizations - would vote up here for it.
If not - i'll continue my work for W3C AR CG - as i understand it --
as i described it in the proposition before the actual voting-up that
leaded to creation.. but in the AR future, if i or theFNF.org or any
other organization that could, potentially,  protect the data or more
- give your digitized home's data to be stored by you, in your
personal, maybe - under the bed - maybe better - safe places..

..if nobody won't succeed in time or by other aspects, in giving you
the reliable, bug-free Cloud for Cloud Points that would be
increasingly used for any kind of interaction in AR --
You could face the Problem in your, personal life, and it wouldn't
only relate to Advertizing (i don't think there will be unblockable
Ads anyway)
 that's what i think.


PS: Excuse me if i worried you or described too much, but i don't see
the reason to keep it all silently as we try to work for Augmented
Reality at a whole.
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 19:53:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 August 2011 19:53:13 GMT