The WG's Three Letters

All-

I'd like to invite people to express their views on the WG's acronym/label.

If the WG is approved, we are going to live with this label for a while 
(I trust!).

Do we have the right (correct/best) three letters?

It is pretty clear (see [1])  that even if we--those who have posted so 
far at least--agree that POI is "larger" than geolocated POIs, the rest 
of the planet still hears (and will continue to use the term to 
reference) geo-located points.

Is it our role or duty to re-educate the entire community of people who 
already use the three letters "POI" and convince them to include the 
broader definition towards which we seem to be gravitating?

This (now) is the perfect opportunity to decide if we want to embrace 
the POI name or explore a new less confusing/misleading three letters 
which capture the scope on which we plan to work.

Scope of the WG:

I would also like to point out that when developing our name and charter 
we will have to be realistic because the group's chairs [and these 
individuals or companies have yet to be identified [2]) will be held to 
certain deliverables.

The charter is developed in order to ensure that whatever is produced 
and contributed is royalty free (something about "normative" something, 
Dan A spoke to me about :-) )

Personally, I believe that there is room and enthusiasm to extend the 
initial charter to include exploring (maybe without being held to 
produce) an open interface for Social AR (see the thread which began 
with this post [3] on July 22) and RoBman suggested [4] that we c/should 
also be looking into the "viewer" or "presentation layer.

-- 
Christine

Spime Wrangler

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Aug/0014.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Draft_Charter
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Jul/0013.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Jul/0045.html

Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 09:18:12 UTC