W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-declarative3d@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [AR Standards Discussion] Getting started with the W3C AR Community Group

From: ya knygar <knygar@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 21:50:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJVWO9YT4ErCyeY0JxUca11Qde0U7MC8C4s=MyZpG_jO6UeAyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philipp Slusallek <slusallek@cs.uni-saarland.de>
Cc: "public-declarative3d@w3.org" <public-declarative3d@w3.org>, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, AR CG <public-ar@w3.org>, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Hi Philipp,

> I think I agree with you. However, the goal of the Community Groups (at
> least to the degree that we understand it at the  Declarative 3D CG) is
> that we are preparing a possible later standardization.

The point is - W3C is already has inner or broader groups leading for
Ubiquitous Web and, may
i say - VR Experience,
we could use for drafting the AR Web propositions.

I see the Rob's http://isweb3here.com/ as a starting point of what we
have from W3C right now.

as i'v said in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ar/2011Aug/0006.html

"This Group (AR CG) - i suppose - is to connect and help to the variety of WG's
as we won't
need many other standards besides that is W3C or aimed to be here.
Well, besides the propositions for healthy use, maybe."

and it really seems like we won't need many, if any.

AR Communities, AR Standards - specifically are doing a pretty well
job in providing the summaries
for most of the variants we have, we'll build the W3C AR Wiki from these,
what do You think, Chairs?

My opinion is:
http://www.khronos.org/ WG's, particularly http://www.khronos.org/streaminput/
+ some standardization for open hardware interfaces (all that - is
stated in description)
like a providing increasingly better connection of portable devices
and glasses and
haptic and other sensors -- that i hope - would be done with help and
authority of Khronos Group
+ all the related W3C and close WG's, of-course,

would lead to a full-stack of open, interoperable and useful W3C
Ubiquitous Web propositions, even
demo-implementations for major Web Browser's and other software and
hardware vendors to make it real, globally.

by that, Rob's
> As for an "all encompassing" Web AR standard...or "any standard" coming
> out of the W3C AR Community Group...I don't think this is the goal for
> these Community Groups at all.  They are not Working Groups.  As far as
> I'm aware they're a new tool for the W3C to encourage broader engagement
> with specific communities of interest.

looks like a reasonable conclusion to work for a particular Open AR
Web platform needs
with existing groups and other kinds of organizations. I think we
should not come to some kind
of AR language or interface besides these which works and being
designed for ubiquity of Web,
in general. We could refine the existent and lead for AR benefits, however.

In other words - I *feel* that the work for AR Web world is being done
actively in
the most respected WG's and SDO's -- already
 and there is an amazingly good platform to work with AR Web.

Our Community, is about to

> Thus starting
> the discussion, clarifying what needs standardization, what options are
> available, what are relevant use cases (and which are not!), etc.

as i see,
with the correction in that - first of all -
"what options are available" should be enlisted in Wiki,
or other appropriate place in AR CG infrastructure,
and only than - clarification for what else (if any) "needs
standardization" help from AR CG.

"what are relevant use cases (and which are not!)"
are already described  in a numerous papers and other publications for AR
and W3C AR Web is (would be, i'm sure) just a case of
standardized protocols and methods for using the existing, even so cutting-edge
WWW rather than inventing new.

> we already have two fairly similar implementations of Dec3D
> (proposed acronym) within the browser (XML3D & X3DOM), we may be in a
> different position, though.

I hope you'll come with one, reasonably best, or advance on differences ;)

With all the respect to many years of Your work for 3D+ Web,
I am concluding that - you are facing the situation where people
increasingly try to
use all the possible/familiar web languages for 3D in the Web,
currently, with the help of WebGL
for hardware acceleration.
Need to say that a clearer description of Declarative 3D conception would help
to understand the benefits of your XML  among all the variety of WebGL
for developers and end-users.
I hope i'v understood correctly a bit of this conception as: "All 3D
content is exposed in the DOM, fully supporting DOM scripting and
But a clear comparison to the top branch of the existing WebGL
frameworks - would be great for me and other developers, i think.

Anyway, I'm very glad to see that Declarative 3D CG is connecting the
initiatives of Fraunhofer,
DFKI, IVCI, Saarland University, Web3D Consortium, Khronos Group, by that,
 i hope -- ISO, MPEG, OGC, DICOM, IMS and other major organizations.
All these initiatives are in a particular scope of W3C AR Web CG and, actually,
working for Ubiquitous Virtual-ity with one or other intentions.

I hope - our CG's would work closely, together, as long as we have the
parallel intentions
 of promoting the native W3C 3D for the Web Graphics.
Received on Sunday, 21 August 2011 21:50:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:31:05 UTC