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

Dear all,

Here some comments:

Table 1. Graphics Standards
a) I would take out PNG and JPG because they are pixel based. You can
instead make a separate table called Image Standards and put the two
entries. 
b) You can add MPEG-4 Part 11 (Binary format for scene) for binary VRML/X3D
c) You can add MPEG-4 Part 16 (Animation Framework eXtension) for compressed
graphics assets


Table 2. Audio Standards
This is a mix of things that are not equivalent. MP3, and you can add MPEG-4
AAC - Advanced Audio Coding, are codecs. OpenSL ES is an API and HTML Audio
Element is a container. If you want to keep this mix you should change the
table's title into "Audio related standards"

Table 3. Video Standards
Same remark as before. 

Last Table. 
I would split it in:
- a Sensor Table with: SensorML, Sensor Observation Service, Device Motion
Event Specification, Device Orientation Event Specification, Media Capture
and Streams??, Smart Transducer Interface (IEEE 1451), MPEG-V
- a Natural Interaction Table with: Touch-based Interactions (Touch Events
Specification) and MPEG-U
- a Programming Table with JavaScript/ECMAScript

Best,
marius



-----Message d'origine-----
De : discussion-bounces@arstandards.org
[mailto:discussion-bounces@arstandards.org] De la part de Neil Trevett
Envoyé : mercredi 2 janvier 2013 21:26
À : Rob Manson
Cc : discussion@arstandards.org; public-ar@w3.org; Martin Lechner
Objet : Re: [AR Standards Discussion] I've created a Related Standards
pagefor the group

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

Received on Thursday, 3 January 2013 16:19:56 UTC