W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Open standards augmented reality

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:47:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4D790EAE.4060806@perey.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: ȫ <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, public-device-apis@w3.org, public-poiwg@w3.org, AR Standards Discussion <discussion@arstandards.org>
Hello Robin et al.,

It is safe to say that there are multiple groups which are working in
parallel towards similar objectives having to do with Augmented Reality
becoming ubiquitous across many digital platforms. There are even some
research labs which are raising awareness of the need for standards for
AR(e.g., GA Tech).

The hope is that we are/will be increasingly aware of one another and
will not begin (or continue) working at cross purposes...

Thank you for sending out the URL to the recent Technology Review
article about the Argon browser. I've been meaning to use this as a
discussion starter though I would go in another direction than this
memo. The Technology Review article is about the GA Tech project, not a
community project, however, lessons learned could inform us all.

I am not part of the Device API community, however, Rob Manson, an
fellow searcher for solutions, monitors it.

I am active in the POI WG and the other community which Rob Manson
introduced to you and which was spawned and "lives" outside the
stewardship of the W3C.

It would be great to see a mapping of all the AR relevant
activity/discussions within the W3C. I'm only involved in POI WG.

Over the past 4-5 months the scope of the POI WG has gradually (and then
quickly) been narrowing to focus on Points of Interest which are
(usually) fixed in space (and time) in order to get a first draft
specification for location-based services and better understand what can
be achieved/established as a base.

I am told that the logic behind this is that this "base" specification
could then become the basis of a second generation spec, designed to
support (more) AR use cases and scenarios in the future.

Non-W3C work: In addition to interest in several W3C groups, there is AR
related activity in OMA, ISO, Web3D Consortium, Khronos Group, OGC and
probably many more industry alliances and SDOs.

The question is how do these work together? Or how will the
organizations avoid conflicts/redundancy?

You may learn more about the organically forming cross-organizational
and international community working towards open AR via multiple
industry groups and SDOs by visiting http://www.arstandards.org and
further by subscribing to

        http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
        http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/news

It is clear that there are many standardsalready available today (and
increasingly in the future there will be more which will) contribute
greatly to the interoperability of AR experiences, content and tools,
regardless of whether the user is "on the Web" or not.

Anyone from any company or organization which is working on standards in
existing bodies is invited to join (no fees, this is informal). We use
the mailing lists and also have face-to-face meetings. Our next meeting
will be in mid-June in Taiwan.

The activity of DAP is interesting and appeared on our radar in October
2010 when members of the above community met in Seoul and again last
month during the second meeting of this community.

To my knowledge, there is work which could be undertaken in DAP in
conjunction with other groups, such as Khronos Group, and OMA.

If a representative of the DAP specifically with agenda to focus on AR
could liaise with the larger (W3C and non-W3C) work groups and
communities, I'm sure that the benefits would be significant and work
would accelerate.

To give you a specific example which came out of the grassroots
community... Last week Rob put together a first draft of an open letter
to sub-systems manufacturers
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16FQ8yWPh9JG_foMFKprTKarIbrc6Q9FN5aBzdeUkwms/edit?hl=en&authkey=COCr4-wM&pli=1#>
about the needs for AR. This is a synthesis of past traffic from our AR
Standards discussion list and remarks/presentations and position papers
contributed to the second international AR standards meeting
<http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/february-meeting/>. See outputs page
here <http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/february-meeting-outputs/>.

Warm regards,

Christine

Spime Wrangler

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


On 3/10/11 10:18 AM, ȫ wrote:
> Hi, Robin,
>
> I think we need to discuss about this topic with POI WG [1]. 
>
> In last year,  we have discussed about various issues on standardization for AR on the Web [2]. 
> As result of workshop, POI WG aimed to developing the standard for AR on the Web. 
>
> Best Regards, 
>
> --- Jonathan Jeon 
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/charter/ 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/w3car/report.html 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:40 AM
> To: public-device-apis@w3.org
> Subject: Open standards augmented reality
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I just came across this:
>
>   http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/35065/?p1=A1&a=f
>   https://research.cc.gatech.edu/polaris/
>
> I was wondering if anyone here was aware of this work, had thoughts, etc. related to rechartering.
>
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:48:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:18 GMT