Re: [AR Standards Discussion] ARML Standards Working Group being formed through OGC (available for comment)

> @Blair MacIntyre
> 
>> Yes, I'm very much of a proponent of building on top of existing web infrastructures.
> as i'v said earlier, if you'll continue the work on KHARMA/Argon it
> would be just great,
> the AR evolution into the consumers space would be faster and
> smoother, i think.

We are.  This year is about 
- (a) porting to android, which will involve some substantial rewriting of the code
- (b) getting more computer vision in there
- (c) growing the community:  I REALLY want to get more people involved in guiding the features and  functionality.  This applies both to KARML, but more importantly to the built-in Javascript APIs and Argon functionality.
- (d) getting the code cleaned up and release as open-source

Obviously, when we get to (d), then (c) will happen faster.  But, I'd like to figure out the best way to get more people involved in making suggestions and even helping us decide how to do many of the things we want to do!

Right now, we are redoing our (meagre) wiki and forums, and will probably add other things.  Would it be useful, for example, to have some mailing lists for folks interested in Argon functionality, the KARML spec, and so forth.

Please tell me what would be best!  (mail privately, if you don't want to spam the list)

>> I think the closed browsers will all fade away in time, or (more likely) shift to using similar open standards approaches.
> i think so,
> to be honest - in the current situation of massive GNU violations
> i can't note the Linux as the good example of total happiness for all,
> but we were - very close to prove the clear Open Source benefits for
> the core parts of users systems. Both the advantage for the businesses
> and freedom of users.

I'll be honest that I'm no fan of the GPL;  if I open things, I prefer to use less cumbersome licenses, that incentivize people to join in.  GPL prevents many companies from being involved (either explicitly, or more importantly, because their internal policies prevent it).

But I do like open source!

My current fear is the patent system, not the open/closed source.  It seems many AR patents are rolling out that could easily be dismissed with prior art, but the system isn't geared to blocking these before they are issued.  Ideas that AR researchers published 10-20 years ago are being patented now!

Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 02:40:47 UTC