Re: [AR Standards Discussion] I've created a Related Standards pagefor the group

Cool 8) That's the link that's there now.

roBman


On 31/12/12 19:44, Martin Lechner wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> works for me, thanks.
> Please also link to the SWG public page
> (http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/arml2.0swg), it links to
> the current spec.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
> Am 28.12.2012 03:05, schrieb Rob Manson:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> I understand what you're saying but my point was that there are no
>> publicly available js libs that implement ARML2 at the moment which is
>> why I thought it didn't qualify "at the moment".
>>
>> How about I make this compromise.  I'll add a footnote about ARML2 and
>> link to your blog post on your "prototype-AR Window implementation".
>>
>> Hope that works for everyone.
>>
>> roBman
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/12 20:18, Martin Lechner wrote:
>>> Hi Rob, George, et.al!
>>>
>>> sorry for following up a little late here.
>>> Rob, good to see that there's consolidated movement also within the W3C
>>> Community Group now, and that you're taking the lead here!
>>>
>>> My opinion on how ARML2 [1] relates to the W3C Community Group:
>>> While you are right that ARML2 does not have a native implementation in
>>> a browser yet, our prototype-AR Window implementation [1] shows that it
>>> can be implemented in a web browsers plugin-free with web technologies
>>> such as WebGL and the various JS APIs, such as GeoLocation and
>>> DeviceOrientation for the spatial part. The ComputerVision-Part can also
>>> be implemented plugin-free and solely in JS, as described by a paper of
>>> TU Graz [2].
>>>
>>> ARML2 can be seen as the language describing the AR scene, which is
>>> complementary to and uses the APIs the browsers expose. In fact, it
>>> takes a JS library to make ARML2 webbrowser-compliant, rather than a
>>> native implementation in the browser (which of course might bring a
>>> certain speedup eventually, especially in the CV part).
>>> So, to summarize, I ask to include ARML2 in the discussion, and not
>>> cross it off the list because it does not yet run in a native browser.
>>> I'm happy to give more insight on request.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> [1] - http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/arml2.0swg
>>> [2] -
>>> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/16/wikitude-takes-its-augmented-reality-beyond-apps-and-direct-to-the-mobile-web/
>>>
>>> or http://www.wikitude.com/wikitude-lab-takes-augmented-reality-web
>>> [3] -
>>> http://icg.tugraz.at/publications/natural-feature-tracking-in-javascript/at_download/file
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 01.12.2012 05:28, schrieb Rob Manson:
>>>> Hi George,
>>>>
>>>>>>> Good to see AR discussion in W3C.
>>>>> ...unless its  a walled garden.
>>>>> You really do not plan to include ARML in "related standards".
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if it appeared that way...that's definitely not the case. I've
>>>> added this content to the top of the Related Standards page to make it
>>>> a little clearer.
>>>>
>>>>   Here is an overview of the key standards that are enabling the
>>>>   Augmented Web.  The standards listed on this page are capable of
>>>>   running inside some version of a standard web browser from one of the
>>>>   mainstream web browser vendors today.
>>>>
>>>>   NOTE: If you are interested in a broader set of Augmented Reality
>>>>         standards then please view the ARStandards.org list[1].
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps make sense of the difference between the 2 lists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ARML1 was discussed in a prior W3C AR workshop.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing that happens in this CG mandates any particular action
>>>> anywhere in the W3C.  So there's definitely no impact here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ARML2 is going through the OGC process for adoption as an OGC
>>>>> standard.
>>>>> The OGC process requires at least two or more commitments to
>>>>> implementation.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that's the case and what I took away from discussions at the
>>>> ARStandards meeting was that none of these had commenced yet or had
>>>> real plans to in the short term.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To not consider ARML2 in W3C seems to be a blind spot.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure the OGC will continue discussions with the W3C about the
>>>> overlap between all of your standards.  As I said, this CG really
>>>> doesn't have any impact on that.
>>>>
>>>> And I hope it's now clear that I'm not "excluding" ARML...it's just
>>>> that to be included on that Related Standards[2] page a standard must
>>>> have a working implementation in a version of a mainstream web browser
>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>> This is not just some arbitrary decision.  This is directly related to
>>>> the new Charter[3] and I hope that I've been really clear as to why
>>>> this makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> roBman
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/existing-standards/
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/community/ar/related-standards/
>>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/community/ar/wiki/Charter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com
>>>>> <mailto:roBman@mob-labs.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi George,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good to see AR discussion in W3C. Enjoyed your paper at the AR
>>>>>>> Community meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suggest your list of AR standards should add ARML2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was going to include it but it doesn't currently have any web
>>>>>> browsers that parse or support it.  So at the moment it can't
>>>>>> currently be classified as an Augmented Web related standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dynamic binding is closer and if somebody implemented a library
>>>>>> that makes this work within one of the mainstream web browsers then
>>>>>> that could change.  But for now I would classify it as an "AR
>>>>>> Standard" and not an "Augmented Web Standard".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW: Have any of the AR Browser Vendors committed to implementing it?
>>>>>> From memory both Martin and Hafez said that they weren't yet working
>>>>>> on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> News about  POI WG:
>>>>>>> Ian Jacobs sent a mail to W3C members that the POI WG is closed
>>>>>>> as of
>>>>>>> September 2012, and that no further progress is foreseen. See
>>>>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2012JulSep/0061.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (member
>>>>>>> only).
>>>>>>> A "Places" community group
>>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/places/> focusing on representing
>>>>>>> POI in
>>>>>>> microformats, RDF and JSON has been created. The Open Geospatial
>>>>>>> Consortium <http://www.opengeospatial.org/> is in the process of
>>>>>>> creating a standards working group to standardize the POI conceptual
>>>>>>> data model and XML encoding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep I saw the email about that on the POI WG mailing list.  If any
>>>>>> "Place/Location" based standards based on
>>>>>> microformats/microdata/RDF/JSON please let me know and I'll add that
>>>>>> to the Related Standards list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> roBman
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discussion mailing list
>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2013 21:12:33 UTC