- From: George Percivall <gpercivall@opengeospatial.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:32:59 -0500
- To: Neil Trevett <ntrevett@nvidia.com>
- Cc: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, "public-ar@w3.org" <public-ar@w3.org>, Martin Lechner <martin.lechner@wikitude.com>
- Message-Id: <3753BA1D-41BA-41BB-BF78-3B708E838236@opengeospatial.org>
Christine, A few more edits on http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/existing-standards/ In the location standards table. Add OGC Open GeoSMS http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/opengeosms Add a remark for these standards: KML, WMS, GML, Open GeoSMS: Implementation = http://www.opengeospatial.org/resource/products/byspec Regards, George On Jan 2, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Neil Trevett <ntrevett@nvidia.com> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/existing-standards/ > Nice list. Some general 'housekeeping level' feedback.. > > Suggest 'Graphics Standards' -> 'Content Formats' > MP3 could be moved into this list > H.264 AVC could be moved to this list > SVG should be moved to Graphics APIs > X3D debatably should be moved to Graphics APIs - or in both lists > > Suggest new Section - 'Graphics APIs' > OpenGL ES (native 3D graphics) > WebGL (JavaScript binding to OpenGL ES for 3D rendering into Canvas) > SVG > Canvas > X3D > > Suggest new section 'Media and Audio APIs' > Audio element > Video element > Web Audio? > MediaStream? > WebRTC? > OpenSL ES > OpenMAX > Nokia FCAM - I am not sure this is an official standard yet > > Hardware Control is left with > Device API > > This will clean up the categories I think and make it more consistent with the W3C lists you mention. Hope this helps... > > Neil > > > -----Original Message----- > From: discussion-bounces@arstandards.org [mailto:discussion-bounces@arstandards.org] On Behalf Of Martin Lechner > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:45 AM > To: Rob Manson > Cc: discussion@arstandards.org; public-ar@w3.org > Subject: Re: [AR Standards Discussion] I've created a Related Standards pagefor the group > > 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-javascr >>> ipt/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/00 >>>>>>> 61.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 >>>> >>> >> > > -- > - - - > Martin Lechner > CTO > > Wikitude GmbH > Ginzkeyplatz 11 > 5020 Salzburg/Austria > Phone +43 662 243310 > Mobile +43 676 840 856 300 > > http://www.wikitude.com > > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@arstandards.org > http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain > confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution > is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by > reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@arstandards.org > http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion George Percivall gpercivall@opengeospatial.org @Percivall on Twitter +1-301-560-6439 http://www.opengeospatial.org/ OGC -- Making Location Count
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2013 14:33:27 UTC