Re: POI WG charter status

Hi Dan,

I think there are already a lot of reference designs for a POI standard
including Layar [1], Junaio [2], KARML/Geospot [3], SimpleGeo [4],
GeoJSON [5], GeoRSS [6], Geo Microformat [7], OpenGeo [8], Geo Planet
[9] just to name a very few.

What we're missing is the work from an open standards body to generalise
these different approaches into a simple, coherent and re-usable model
to bind these disparate data silo's into one single shared web of POIs.

So I completely agree with you...we ought to have one by now 8)

If this group needs to focus on stabilising this existing space as a
starting point then I do think that's a great idea.  And keeping the
door open to evolve this mission as the field quickly changes - largely
driven by the community of implementors - will also be essential.

I'm really looking forward to reviewing all of these approaches at the
Standards Workshop in Seoul and I think as a group we can definitely
work to consolidate some useful perspectives to feed back into this
groups work.

I also think that the broader focus on sensors and Patterns of Interest
will inform a lot of our ongoing discussions too.


roBman

[1] http://layar.pbworks.com/GetPOIs-Request+and+Response+Examples
[2] http://www.junaio.com/publisher/poissearch
[3] https://research.cc.gatech.edu/kharma/content/karml-reference
[4] http://simplegeo.com/docs/getting-started/introduction#what-record 
[5] http://geojson.org/geojson-spec.html#point
[6] http://www.georss.org/Main_Page
[7] http://microformats.org/wiki/geo 
[8] http://opengeo.org/publications/opengeo-architecture/#4
[9] http://developer.yahoo.com/geo/geoplanet/ 


On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 09:16 +0200, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > I'm fascinated to see how cut-down the charter now is, especially based
> > on the public discussion and apparent consensus that had been forming on
> > this list.
> >
> > Personally I find it hard to see how a solely Point of Interest standard
> > based on the thinnest definition will be anything but very out dated and
> > redundant by Dec 2011 (scheduled date for REC).
> 
> If a workable POI standard is so easy, we ought to have one by now!
> 
> > Also, since so many people will be in Seoul for ISMAR10, ISWC, Mobile AR
> > Summit and the AR Standards Workshop then surely that would be a great
> > time to kick off this discussion in more detail.
> 
> Good idea. If you can also kick start a community of implementors who
> will try to build, test and refine richer, more sophisticated
> potential standards for Geo/AR, it should be possible imho for the W3C
> group's mission to evolve over the next year or so to track that
> changing reality. But in the absence of candidate designs that have
> multiple implementations, I'm completely supportive of a modest,
> "let's stabilise the basics" charter.
> 
> Generally it's better to finalise things in W3C WGs than to invent
> them, and we still seem to be in a very inventive phase here...
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
> >
> > roBman
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:12 -0400, Braun, Andrew wrote:
> >> Hi Everyone,
> >>
> >> First off an introduction, I am Andy Braun from Sony Ericsson. I have
> >> been tagged to chair this POI working group. In addition to this
> >> group, my responsibilities in Sony Ericsson include researching
> >> emerging web and application technologies for the office of the CTO.
> >>
> >> I hope those of you who are Advisory Committee representatives have
> >> already seen that a Points of Interest WG charter [1] has been
> >> submitted for review. The charter details three main deliverables: a
> >> "Points of Interest" Recommendation, a WG Note detailing AR specific
> >> POI properties, and another note that covers how AR and Web standards
> >> can converge.  There are other potentially separate deliverables, such
> >> as best practices, use cases/requirements, a 'landscape' document,
> >> test suite, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The review period ends on the 24th of September, so please be sure
> >> that you or your AC rep fill in the survey [2] as soon as possible.
> >>  If you haven't joined W3C yet, now is the time.  Once the review
> >> ends, there is a two week period where W3C management reviews the
> >> results and creates the new WG.  So, the WG should be ready to go the
> >> week of 11 October.  While we could have our first teleconference
> >> during the week of 11 October, many of the group’s participants will
> >> likely be at ISMAR that week. So I recommend we have our call during
> >> the week of 18 October.  Before then, I'll send out a poll for
> >> selecting the time and date. I'll follow up with an agenda about a
> >> week or so before the meeting.
> >>
> >> With regards to the first face to face meeting, we did talk about
> >> meeting at TPAC in Lyon during November. However, for a number of
> >> reasons which I am happy to discuss, this will not be possible. I
> >> would like to meet face to face this year. With holidays approaching I
> >> believe the best chance would be during the first week or second week
> >> of December.  I will provide more details about the site and logistics
> >> in a future note.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I look forward to a continued interesting and fruitful discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Andy Braun
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/charter/
> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/POI-2010/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 07:45:20 UTC