Re: thoughts towards a draft AR WG charter

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com> wrote:
> Instructions on how to vote included below.
>
> Thanks to Thomas and Jens for renewing this thread and topic, and for
> expressing the charter in their own words, yet very consistently with the
> concepts I suggested in the July 9 memo.
>
> The breakdown is helpful and it reflects the fact that Jens (and others)
> have already been working on the issue from various points of view.
>
> To give those who have posted and those lurking on the sidelines (and from
> whom we can hear) more encouragement, I had a meeting earlier this week with
> Matt Womer, Staff support person at W3C.
>
> I believe that I was able to communicate to Matt the broad definition of
> "trigger" for AR applications and he saw a distinction between GeoSpatial
> triggers (POI) and other classes of triggers (an image, a sound, etc).
>
> An ontology could be designed, building upon existing experience with
> geospatial, for example, to classify/describe triggers that are then used
> for many applications, including Augmented Reality.
>
> I think Matt and I could agree that a trigger can also be described as an
> "event" which consists of one or more sensors (camera, GPS, compass,
> microphone, etc) detecting something (a stimulus) in the real world.
>
> The same sensor(s) could detect two versions of the same event (e.g., the
> Swiss flag on the hotel is recognized as being the same as the flag flying
> over the town hall) and, depending on the service to which the
> user/subscriber is sending the query and the capabilities of the network and
> device, the user might receive a different (unique or standard) digital
> result which is "set" in context of the real world.
>
> Matt and I also explored how the element of time (when was the trigger? when
> did the event occur, is it during opening hours of a business?) can be part
> of the data which is used to retrieve the resulting output/linked data.
>
> *RESPONSE REQUESTED*
> If you want to see the AR WG charter move forward and become the basis of
> future work, vote with your fingers.
>
> If you like what you are reading sufficiently to work on it, simply post a
> +1 to this list.
>
> If you don't like what you are reading, feel that something important is
> missing, feel free to add value or to differ but, please, be specific.

Most of what I've seen discussed here, I'd like to see progressed
within a public W3C WG. Much of the technical detail mentioned so far,
I'd rather see conducted under a broader Geolocation WG, alongside
some kind of accompanying AR community activity whose role was to
ensure other technical WGs (at W3C and elsewhere) addressed the needs
of the AR scene.

I don't know how to express that with +/- n :) But hope I'm clear!

cheers

Dan

ps. sorry for any slow responses, on vacation with a dud laptop

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 20:29:58 UTC