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: ya knygar <knygar@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:01:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJVWO9bXr3+6KpZdgp9EqEt=+5eHxBrt0kr3ozuP8RD9ir=U_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Blair MacIntyre <blair@cc.gatech.edu>
Cc: roBman@mob-labs.com, "public-declarative3d@w3.org" <public-declarative3d@w3.org>, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, W3C AR Community Group <public-ar@w3.org>
to add into the conversation
about StreamInput and standardization of API's

- i am forwarding here the cut from - the post by Kevin Shaw, CTO of the
Sensor Platforms
[ http://www.khronos.org/message_boards/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=4240 ]

"the inputs are changing in significant ways. I now count over 15
different inputs available on the new generations of smart phones:
- Motion: Accelerometer, magnetometer, gyroscope and barometer
- Optical: front camera, rear camera, optical proximity and ambient
light sensors
- RF: GPS, GSM/CDMA, WiFi, Bluetooth and NFC (Yes, these are
positional inputs too)
- Audio: microphones ( 3 x per smart phone for background noise rejection)
- Tactile: Touch screen (not including mechanical buttons)

For example, an augmented reality app is probably using over half of
these now and soon will use most of them. Most of the sensors overlap
in significant ways (there are, after all, only six degrees of freedom
needed to fully define a rigid body kinematically), however none of
them are sufficient all the time and one ends of combining (fusing)
inputs across them most of the time."

that's alone looks pretty interesting/exciting.

But this isn't the full conversation, as you could see on that thread
- developers have the demand for even more API's than StreamInput is about.


@Neil Trevett

> I agree.  This group is working to use existing browser machinery – such as DOM – to bring programming 3D in the browser to a higher and more familiar level than raw WebGL for a typical web developer.  It is still a general purpose way to program 3D – and will likely drive down into WebGL for acceleration without a plug-in.

i hope so, thank you for acknowledgment!

Scott Wilson have recently done the comparison:
https://scottbw.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/landscapev3.png

i could add about Mozilla's WebAPI team's work
[ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/08/more-details-about-the-webapi-effort/ ]

- "The approach we’re planning on taking is to do both high-level and
low-level APIs, as well as give people the proper incentives to use
the one that is best for the user. But a very important point is to
provide low-level APIs early to ensure that Mozilla isn’t on the
critical path for innovation. Over time, we can add high-level APIs
where that makes sense."


@Blair MacIntyre

>Yes, I'm very much of a proponent of building on top of existing web infrastructures.
as i'v said earlier, if you'll continue the work on KHARMA/Argon it
would be just great,
the AR evolution into the consumers space would be faster and
smoother, i think.

> I think the closed browsers will all fade away in time, or (more likely) shift to using similar open standards approaches.
i think so,
to be honest - in the current situation of massive GNU violations
i can't note the Linux as the good example of total happiness for all,
but we were - very close to prove the clear Open Source benefits for
the core parts of users systems. Both the advantage for the businesses
and freedom of users.

> There is no good justification (aside from their business needs, which I understand and empathize with -- they need to take care of themselves!) for proprietary architectures.

> To me, these are akin to the pre-web hypertext systems, or the pre-search-engine "aol keywords".

i'm also - optimistic,
 given the participation of the major AR user-agent's based businesses
in the standardization processes.

 I hope - businesses would understand that there aren't yet the major
'anti-proprietary software' movements or licenses, as weren't the OSS
license-ignorance precursors, precedents.

 I hope 'medium' and 'small' businesses just like the 'large players'
would increasingly understand that these Open Source Web engines they
could base on, that the licenses these use -- they are/were
increasingly for freedom and better security - for users like me and
you, in the end.. just as simple, being made by successful businesses,
by-the-way. These systems weren't in !any way - against the for-profit
business, moreover, so many work was done by Open Source community to
be the propose the best choices for business.

My opinion is, as i represent the Open AR community here:

-- businesses have everything they could basically wish - on the AR
table now to respectfully take/fork, have fun, then - reasonable
profit from the work.
 There are so many successful examples of open systems, and the
systems we'd all have to build to make the AR a better place - are so
complex that i, simply, don't see other rational variants.

PS: To add into that conclusion, just a fun fact -- i Don't know any
developer currently, i mean it - !any developer that would like to be
hired for work on the closed systems rather than open.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Blair MacIntyre <blair@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> @Blair MacIntyre
>>
>> :)
>> excuse me for the confusion,
>> my message was addressed to Rob,
>> and i have asked Rob - the title of
>> the presentation he plans.
>>
>> what
>>> i think - Blair MacIntyre would also represent the Web standards view on AR,
>> (i think i just needed a ";" not a "," there)
>
> No problem!  Sorry for misunderstanding! :)
>
>> means - is that, following the
>> "In contrast to other proprietary augmented reality (AR) browser
>> solutions, this approach uses standard web servers for content
>> delivery and lets users deploy almost any web-based technology into
>> the surrounding scene"
>> citation from the https://research.cc.gatech.edu/kharma/
>> and the fact that - you are building the Web Browsers based
>> (AR-enabling Web) implementations,
>> i'v assumed that you would "represent" the kind of "AR into
>> standardized Open Web" not
>> into other nets/through centralized hubs etc.
>
> Yes, I'm very much of a proponent of building on top of existing web infrastructures.  I think the closed browsers will all fade away in time, or (more likely) shift to using similar open standards approaches.  There is no good justification (aside from their business needs, which I understand and empathize with -- they need to take care of themselves!) for proprietary architectures.  To me, these are akin to the pre-web hypertext systems, or the pre-search-engine "aol keywords".
>
>> I have assumed that you'd actually be there (on the conference) -
>> because i'v seen your name among the Organizers.
>
> I planned on it, but family constraints prevent me leaving home till Monday, so I won't be there till Tuesday morning, unfortunately!
>
>>> we have a paper on Argon and KARML in the main conference, but that's only "useful" to those attending (and there, we'll focus on the research side, not the > standards side).
>>
>> I hope you'll share the papers on the Web, later =)
>
> Of course!
>
>>
>> Could you please explain, why, following the Christine's post
>> the "OGC ARML activity will be topic of a presentation and discussion"
>> as a standard it seems,
>> and KARML wouldn't?
>> ("initial question i'v written was - do you think it is early for
>> something as the reference "AR ML" from/for the industry?")
>>
>> I'v understood that you'd like to "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"
>>
>> but given that OGC ARML going to be finally - pretty formal.. isn't it
>> better to collaborate for one better standard with extensions earlier,
>>
>> i just wonder.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Blair MacIntyre <blair@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>> I will be there the second day, but I wasn't aware I was presenting anything … we have a paper on Argon and KARML in the main conference, but that's only "useful" to those attending (and there, we'll focus on the research side, not the standards side).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:24 PM, ya knygar wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Rob
>>>>> and I'm hoping Lars will do too.
>>>> excuse me, who is Lars?
>>>>
>>>> anyway - great,
>>>> i think - Blair MacIntyre would also represent the Web standards view on AR,
>>>> could you name the subject of your presentation?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
>>>>> Well I'll be covering the work of those other groups in my presentation
>>>>> and I'm hoping Lars will do too.
>>>>>
>>>>> roBman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 16:45 +0200, Christine Perey wrote:
>>>>>> 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>:
>>>>>>>>> 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>  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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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 Friday, 16 September 2011 02:02:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 September 2011 02:02:43 GMT