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

RE: [AR Standards Discussion] ARML Standards Working Group being formed through OGC (available for comment)

From: ȫ <hollobit@etri.re.kr>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 03:02:40 +0900
Message-ID: <03F823891AF33D499971F7DDAB8EAD170575EA76@email2>
To: <cperey@perey.com>, <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Cc: <discussion@arstandards.org>, <public-declarative3d@w3.org>, "W3C AR Community Group" <public-ar@w3.org>, <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Hi, 

 

The ARML had been a too long journey for standardization. 

 

Formal Standardization of ARML, it was initiated by Mobilizy, and firstly discussed on the AR consortium, 

And then it was discussed on the OMA, and discussed on the W3C POI WG, and finally reached the OGC. 

 

I hope it can be settled down well in the OGC, and make the really good progress. 

 

Best Regards, 

 

--- Jonathan Jeon 

 

From: public-ar-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ar-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christine Perey
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:45 PM
To: roBman@mob-labs.com
Cc: discussion@arstandards.org; public-declarative3d@w3.org; W3C AR Community Group
Subject: Re: [AR Standards Discussion] ARML Standards Working Group being formed through OGC (available for comment)

 

Hi,

This integrative work is precisely one of the purposes of the AR standards community. 

But, it only works when/to the extent that people want it to. 

Gentle reminder that the next meeting is Oct 24-25 in Basel. 

The OGC ARML activity will be topic of a presentation and discussion, but the other groups which Rob mentions (W3C DAP, W3C Web RTC, W3C Audio WG) are not on the agenda...



Christine
 
Spime Wrangler
 
cperey@perey.com
mobile +41 79 436 6869
VoIP +1 (617) 848-8159
Skype Christine_Perey


On 9/15/11 2:58 PM, Rob Manson wrote: 

I think ya knygar raises a very interesting point for you Martin and the
OGC too.  How do you see this relating to all the work already under way
for web based AR standards development.
 
I mean how would this integrate with the Declarative 3D work?
Or the POI WG work?
Or the DAP and Web RTC work?
Or the Audio WG work?
 
And how would this integrate or leverage the StreamInput work that
Khronos are starting?
 
I'm all for standards...but I think before we head into another set of
weeds I'd really like to see our overall community doing more
integrative work.
 
roBman
 
 
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 12:29 +0000, ya knygar wrote:

	Hello Martin Lechner!

		I strongly disagree that AR standards are still not required.

	 
	i don't see any soul here - with ignorance for IT standards,
	i think what Blair MacIntyre - the developer of another useful AR
	standard - exactly mean:
	 

		Given that a vast amount of what would be "in" an ARML or KARML data stream, there is absolutely no chance any of them will be compatible with each other any time soon, so why not work on the big issues before going down into the weeds?...
		to work together to be compatible where we agree, and go our own way when we don't, and then see things evolve basic on real people actually

	doing things with the various browser and so on.
	 
	 
	-

		I think that - while the "Web Story" is a little bit different from the "AR Story" - it still makes a good "reference story".

	 
	1. Following your context -- do you envision some AR Net rather than
	functioning only in the standards defined - Web?
	(given the currently strong approach on standardization of "Device
	API's", i mean - at least 3 serious groups - working for the 'next'
	Web)
	 
	2. Do you think it is 'Ok' to make some other consortium and move
	separately from the current W3C governance?
	(like WHATWG did, for example)
	 
	3. Could you, please, elaborate on the differences where are the good
	old, decentralized
	"World Wide Web (WWW, or simply Web)" as "an information space in
	which the items of interest, referred to as resources, are identified
	by global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)."
	model does not fit / where it fits in your opinion?
	 

		Once again, I'd like to invite everyone (as in *EVERYONE*) to work within the ARML 2.0 SWG

	do you plan an open mailing list or forum during the development of proposition,
	 so people - who aren't the members of OGC for one or another reason
	- would be able to contribute/etc. into the standard formation - in other way?
	 
	sincerely,
	knygar
	 
	 
	2011/9/15 Martin Lechner <martin.lechner@wikitude.com> <mailto:martin.lechner@wikitude.com> :

		Hi Blair, Carl, Rob et al.!
		 
		While I do agree that AR is not used by masses of people yet, I strongly
		disagree that AR standards are still not required. In my opinion, a standard
		the AR community agrees on will help the industry grow significantly, if (as
		in *IF*) the standard takes into account that it will require extension in
		the future. Still, we all know that AR applications are out for quite some
		time now (with a lot more to come every week), and I guess all of us will
		agree that they all have significant overlaps in their functionalities. As
		far as I'm concerned, this already justifies working on a standard for AR.
		Figure how HTML was created - it started out with a couple of tags, and I'm
		pretty sure Tim did not know precisely how the Web will be shaped in the
		future. Yet, it was extensible, and turned out to be successful. I think
		that - while the "Web Story" is a little bit different from the "AR Story" -
		it still makes a good "reference story".
		 
		In my opinion, it's about getting things started, allowing the AR industry
		to agree on a standard, while still not closing doors for extending the
		standard. It will be one of the key topics in the ARML 2.0 SWG where we need
		to ensure that future AR requirements can be met (by adding new components
		to the standard), I keep thinking about a component model where various
		components can connect with the existing ones.
		 
		Once again, I'd like to invite everyone (as in *EVERYONE*) to work within
		the ARML 2.0 SWG to define an AR standard within the OGC. You guys at GA
		Tech could certainly contribute a lot to the success of the SWG, so in case
		you are still interested, we will kick-off the ARML 2.0 SWG in the OGC TC
		meeting in Boulder on Monday, Sept. 19th. Whoever wants to join and get
		involved in the SWG is invited!
		 
		Best,
		Martin
		 
		 
		Am 04.09.2011 15:26, schrieb Blair MacIntyre:

			 
			Hi Martin,
			 
			I agree with Rob;  if you have a larger list of efforts, it would have
			been more useful to include them, rather than making it appear quite so
			"wikitude-centric".  Folks will be far more interested in contributing if it
			appears to be more inclusive;  as it stands, the document feels a bit to
			focused on your company, which won't serve you well.  Witness my reaction.
			;)
			 
			We'll be happy to discuss the directions we are going to be going this
			year with KARML;  the current implemented version touches on some of what
			you are going after, and our plans for Argon for this year touch on much of
			the rest of it.
			 
			Georgia Tech is not a member of OGC as far as I can tell, so our
			involvement won't be "formal".
			 
			Just so you know, I feel that this effort is premature;  I find it ironic
			that you are taking KML (a "standard" that evolved from a widely used
			defector standard into something more formal only after it was proven to be
			useful), and using it as the basis for a "design before we really know what
			people will use" standard.   I use "we" inclusively:  I don't think any of
			us (including researchers like me) really _know_ what needs to be in these
			standards and tools, since AR is still not being used by very many people
			for very many things, and certainly not in the architectural scenario these
			standards will impact.   There are some things that can be standardized,
			perhaps (e.g., some of the ARML 1.0 things, which we've taken further in
			KARML, like extending ideas of location reference beyond LLA).  But when you
			start talking about "events" I get nervous.
			 
			I'd much rather see an informal effort by those of us (you at wikitude, my
			team, perhaps others) who are actually building on top of KML and building
			javascript libraries for AR, to work together to be compatible where we
			agree, and go our own way when we don't, and then see things evolve basic on
			real people actually doing things with the various browser and so on.  Given
			that a vast amount of what would be "in" an ARML or KARML data stream, there
			is absolutely no chance any of them will be compatible with each other any
			time soon, so why not work on the big issues before going down into the
			weeds?
			 
			On Sep 4, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Martin Lechner wrote:
			 

				Hi Rob, hi Blair!
				 
				We already have a list of other standards/efforts we will include in the
				charter prior to the startup of the SWG, and KARML is on the list already,
				along with others. The revised list will be published in an updated charter
				document after the public comment-period. I agree that KARML is valuable
				contribution towards an AR standard.
				 
				As a general "Call for Participation", I would love to have
				representatives from other institutions which proposed AR standards in the
				SWG, it would be great to have you on board. However, as far as I
				understood, you need to be OGC member to work within an SWG, this is a
				formal requirement.
				 
				In case you consider joining OGC to work within the SWG, highly
				appreciated - I think Carl is the one to talk to about it.
				 
				Regards,
				Martin
				 
				Martin Lechner
				CTO
				Wikitude GmbH.
				+43 (0)676 840 856 300
				martin.lechner@wikitude.com
				 
				You are catching me underway ... On my iPhone!
				 
				 
				On 04.09.2011, at 14:09, Rob Manson<roBman@mob-labs.com> <mailto:roBman@mob-labs.com>   wrote:
				 

					I think those are fair questions that hopefully Martin or even Carl,
					Steven or any of the OGC people on the list here could address.
					 
					 
					roBman
					 
					 
					On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 07:57 -0400, Blair MacIntyre wrote:

					 
					Interesting.  How do we comment on it if we aren't OGC members?
					 
					Obviously, the complete lack of any mention of our work on KARML is a
					bit surprising (if only in the "other know efforts" section), considering
					it's more mature than either ARML or ARchitect, is well documented on our
					website, and has a fully working implementation in the iTunes app store
					(Argon).  And, of course, since I know they know about Argon and KARML, it's
					clearly an intentional omission.
					 
					While I realize their bias is toward their own commercial interests, it
					would seem to undermine the position of OGC as a standards organization to
					have a small group of people leverage them as a platform to promote their
					commercial product.
					 
					 
					On Sep 4, 2011, at 4:07 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
					 

					Here's a publicly accessible link.
					 
					     https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=45439
					 
					 
					Thanks Carl/Steven.
					 
					 
					roBman
					 
					 
					On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 00:27 +1000, Rob Manson wrote:

					 
					Hi,
					 
					cross posting this from the AR-UX list as I think many will find it
					interesting/relevant.
					 
					     Augmented Reality Markup Language (ARML) Standards Working Group
					     being formed. Draft charter available for review/comment if
					     you're an Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) member.
					 
					     Please address any comments or questions to Martin Lechner -
					     martin.lechner@wikitude.com This is the start of a 3 week review
					     period. After this period, Carl Reed [OGC CTO] will do a formal
					     call for participation. Also, if your organisation wishes to be
					     represented as a Charter member of this new Standards Working
					     Group (SWG), please let Martin and Carl know.
					 
					     I realise a number of you are not and may never be members of
					     the OGC, so this is just some market information for you. Any
					     resulting standards from the OGC are freely available.
					 
					 
					 http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=730135900&gid=3844396&type=member&item=67968411&articleURL=https%3A%2F%2Fportal%2Eopengeospatial%2Eorg%2Ffiles%2F%3Fartifact_id%3D45285%26version%3D1&urlhash=1ywF&goback=%2Egde_3844396_member_67968411
					 
					     /via Steven Ramage @ OGC
					 
					 
					roBman
					 
					 
					_______________________________________________
					Discussion mailing list
					Discussion@arstandards.org
					http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
					 

					_______________________________________________
					Discussion mailing list
					Discussion@arstandards.org
					http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

					 

					_______________________________________________
					Discussion mailing list
					Discussion@arstandards.org
					http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

				 
				_______________________________________________
				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
		 
		 
		_______________________________________________
		Discussion mailing list
		Discussion@arstandards.org
		http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
		 
		 

	_______________________________________________
	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 Thursday, 15 September 2011 18:02:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 September 2011 18:02:33 GMT