Re: The WG's Three Letters

Hi Matt, You have stated the options for a WG name clearly.

I hope that people on the list will take the time to express their 
thoughts/concerns, etc.

On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
>
> 1. POI WG
> 2. Augmented Reality WG
> 3. A name that encompass 1 and/or 2
> 4. A wholly new term
>
> My opinions are:
>
> I see POI as closest to our main deliverable and initial goal.  It's an established term that's recognizable and seems unlikely to fade or fall out of favor over time.  The scope may sound narrow, but the work is of a significant size.
>

> An Augmented Reality WG strikes me as a pretty broad and kind of vague name.  It would also require definition wrangling as AR means all things to all people.  It implies a broad scope too, and it's unclear what the deliverables would be that address AR that also aren't reusable outside of AR, etc.
>
AR is broad, and broad appeal (based on a small sample).

As you point out, it suffers from different handicaps (compared with POI 
drawbacks).
?

> With regards to the third option, IIRC a combination of POI and AR was floated at the workshop, but I can't find it.  "POI for AR" is too restrictive, as these should be reusable POIs outside of AR.  "POI and AR" seems like the worst of the first two options combined.
>
I don't recall another name at the workshop. Perhaps someone else who 
was there does?

> A new term would seem to require more education and defining.

>
> I also wouldn't rule out that we may well have a better picture of what needs standardizing beyond POI and recharter and possibly rename too.
>
Sorry, I am not following you on the above sentence. Perhaps you are 
saying that a WG can begin with one charter, one name. Then, after 
achieving something (hopefully its charter), it redefines itself, 
defines new charter, new name.

In both options 1 and 2 above, those in the "fold" know. And it doesn't 
really matter what those outside know or do not know.

is there a scenario in which the name of the group is "AR WG" and the 
initial charter is to work on the POI data format with broad 
applicabilities?


On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
>> 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 :-) )
>
> Yes, in order to participate members must make an IP commitment which is based on the Recommendation track deliverables in the charter.
>
Matt, Could you please point to a URL which explains the IP commitment?

Also could you please explain the terms of participation?
A lot of those on this list are not members of W3C.

If I understand correctly, when the work of a WG begins in earnest, 
messages will go onto a new list called "members-xxxwg@w3.org" and this 
list "public-poiwg@w3.org" will quieten down/only be used for public 
announcements.

On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
> WRT to presentation layer, what is the deliverable there?

this would be one for Rob Manson to take and flesh out, I think. Or 
maybe there is someone else who has strong feeling about what I called 
the presentation layer.
>
> Moving on to other messages in this thread:
>
> On Aug 4, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Chandra Sekhar P. wrote:
> <snip>
>> I feel 'AR' related token is more apt than 'POI' as we need to ultra-define
>> and educate the word POI to the public. And it is justifiable by
>> consideration that we toying several tokens like mobile AR, web AR, social
>> AR etc in our on-going discussions.
>
On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
> I feel the exact opposite as I laid out above.  It's not entirely clear what Recommendation track deliverables we would end up with that are specific to AR, and I don't think the definition of POI that I laid out at [2] is really all that out there.
>

In cases like this, the community of stakeholders needs to express itself.


> On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> <snip>
>> As for social AR, I am still passionate we need a complementary
>> server<>server protocol in order to ensure that personal and secure
>> group communication can be done without requiring all users on the
>> same server. (for this I rather like the email analogy, we don't want
>> everyone having to use Hotmail in order to send private messages to
>> each-other).
>
On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
> My gut feeling is that we'll have our hands full defining a POI format, and specialized AR properties on top of that without getting into protocols.  With the protocols and APIs that are already out there, we'll get pretty far.
>

I hope those on this list will express themselves regarding this point.

Are there specialized needs for Social AR which are not met by the 
current Social Web/Federated Web protocols under development?

>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Draft_Charter
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 09:55:05 UTC