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

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

From: ya knygar <knygar@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:24:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJVWO9Y_f-3bgWxou=xUWRT0B_4sHcjyNJ=DeNP-Sppi0nhC7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-ar@w3.org
Cc: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, discussion@arstandards.org, roBman@mob-labs.com, public-poiwg@w3.org, public-declarative3d@w3.org, damon.oehlman@gmail.com, openarweb@googlegroups.com
Hi Jonathan,

since we talk - strictly about software
- on this early stage of AR Web tech - i distinguish particular use-cases:
(all these - in real use - could be mixed, transformed etc.)

1.  The Objects (user-end -- Web and non Web - 'sites',
'applications', etc.) that you Augment into the
AR Web 'reality', among other, i mean - with a possibility of
"broadcasting" these Objects
into Web so other people could see "your vision"
for this case you may
- add the AR interaction as an AR Web browser
- develop the specifically AR possibilities/AR-UX of these Objects;
then - augment it with AR Web browser. That could mean -
the Web Objects that you create specifically for augmented reality Web.
Could mean other, but the objective is to make these Objects to be
used in a Web.
You see - my goal (and i think - Rob's) is to continue the WWW to be
used for AR,

Not some AR-Inter(rather Intra)nets or kind.

2.  among these -- but as a separate case -- Objects that are developed
 not to be augmented but to Sense (receive, process etc. but NOT
Augment into your eye etc. - that was the previous case)
 the information from your 'sensors'

It may include the
- you may obtain the info from the Web - by this - you are sensing
it's parametric info.
- you may sense the Object directly by yourself (your gadget etc.)
- you may sense some 'non-Web' near-range or long-range info like a
popular Wi-Fi, IR, Bluetooth, audio and/or other
and then - 'transform'  these into the Web Objects augment it by
yourself with the help of AR Web
browser, provide the possibility for people to  see these
'transmissions' from other side of the globe
- etc.etc. you know - there are infinitive possibilities while we talk
about Reality, especially Augmented.

Do ensure the productive and transparent work
I'm sure - we all (especially the active participants of AR Standards,
Open AR Web and Chairs of W3C AR CG, since these relate directly)
 should gather the needs in/of API's and describe these for SDO groups
which are working for final W3C recommendations.
Like Rob Manson is doing for WebRTC.

Personally - I see the nice WebRTC spec. as an essential need for Open
Web Platform (including AR ofc.) and trying to explain the importance
of it to people i contact.
Also - i have contacted and, given the answers -- aimed to
productively work with Mozilla's new WebAPI's on the AR-related topics
for the further W3C standardization.
Other, existent W3C standards - needs re-consideration and i hope -
W3C Native Web Apps CG would help on this.

Among other,
this, second case,
 is very Security >> (by this) Privacy dependent,
as i'v described earlier - i'm working for the Security of AR,
 by this  -  Privacy, Safety use, De-centralization etc.

for this case -- it relates with GIS and other personal data such as 'markers'.
We are working and i'm learning - how to secure the AR with the help
of freedomboxfoundation.org, thefnf.org, identitycommons.net etc.
in a few words - with the best volunteer professionals i find :)

As for Safety use - in terms of healthy use -- i do what i can, though
- it may not relate to the Web and by this to W3C 'directly',
but, anyway, the help on this topic is highly appreciated.

to sum up -
i use - Augmenting term for what you augment and finally sense with
your abilities.
i use - Senses term for the initial sensing and transforming into data
that being computed.

I know - my English could be tricky so i could explain all this in
other words if anybody wish.

all this - while we advance and talk about particular applications:
could be (technically) sensed/augmented with many techniques
among which i distinguish particular cases, though
- these all are very approximate(in a sense that - it is not
constant/accurate) definitions and these all may be mixed in various

1. sensing/augmenting with the help of stand-alone, strictly owned
(often - governmental and corporations property),
 hardware - space and ground-based navigation systems
such as GNSS's (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Global_navigation_satellite_system)
 with supportive ground-based, kind of LORANs and other "Sensors" that
aren't 'completely' under the end-users control.
For 'software'
 - In this case one could add any centralized closed-proprietary
data/computing (yeah, i understand it is all - computing.. anyway)
 system and kinds of AR-Intranets which exists currently.

2. augmenting with the help of hardware and software systems (sic!
Systems, Not Content! Content is another theme) that you fully(as you
may) Own and Control.
This work is very challenging but, as Open AR (for software it is Open
like in OpenSource.org definition, for hardware it is like - you may
easily change and control fully what you own)
Community - we believe - it would be reality at least for some of the
users that demand.

There are, as usually with AR - additional use-cases, benefits etc. I
think - while we would advance on implementations
we would discuss and describe more particular cases.

> This demo would be a Vision of our community group.
> https://mozillademos.org/demos/remixingreality/demo.html

that was inspiring demo!
we, as Open AR community have tried to gather the resources
that we, here - as the software implementations developers - may
easily use/adopt/change/spread Freely,
while implementing the reference W3C standards-based AR.

We'v gathered it on pad - http://primarypad.com/OpenAR-Call
trying to enlist only as strongly "multi-platform" "reusable" as
possible - it means in worst cases there
are versions for two different mobile platforms, in best cases - for
One Web platform :)

That pad doesn't pretend by any mean to be complete or considerably accurate.
 Your Help/Contribution/Comments for making it such - is highly appreciated!

> change the name of this community group
> to "Augmented Reality Web Community Group", not "Augmented Reality Community Group".

in the process of choosing this, current name - my thoughts were
simple -- i'm on WWW Consortium facilities,
by that -- W3C AR CG -- is for WWW Consortium's AR :)
given that W3C is about an "Open Web Platform" -- not the less, not more.

The domain of this CG is W3.org and to avoid confusion - i describe it
as W3C AR CG in places where the domain isn't obvious.
(also there are Open AR Web Google Groups Community that is very close
by intentions and could be confused if we would change the name)

 You are the first who proposing the change to - in my view - W3C AR
Web CG, so far.
I'm voting right here: against.

If you still think the naming is irrelevant to actions of this CG and
we should rename it to avoid confusion -- i propose you to create a
with the given W3C CG WordPress system, propose the variants and
i propose the participants of this group -- Chairs or not - vote
for the change of the name -  there.


>I'm a bit concerned some of the recent "security" related discussions in
> those WGs may be driving people to want to lock down the data access to
> those tracks though 8(
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Sep/0026.html

man, this is very interesting and wide-related topic..
Very difficult topic, also, as for me..

Security is in this topic, also DRM is.

I realize that some people need DRM for canvas etc. places W3C Open
Web Platform - people are worried about.
My conclusion - while people are worried about Security - there are
encryption systems
that are being developed that may, beyond the basic purposes - provide
the needed DRM for
content producers.

There are - comments for this topic - on almost every W3C Web
Standards related topics,
including WebRTC.

I'll describe my personal conclusion that arose from experience:

There are two principal kinds of rights/restrictions management currently:

1. Where you could use the Object(including data etc.) while it
belongs to you by fully given(sold) rights,
even by ethically given rights(in some cases) - since governments or
such an organizations develop ethical policies..
so you could Use - locally, could Use and by this -
copy/past/merge/whatever your local laws are able to provide to you.
2. Where you could not.

Second is the kind of DRM with which Corp's etc. increasingly fail
through all the history-- trying to block the user from using the
Object (stream of it etc) user owns (bought, being granted etc.);

to elaborate a bit:
- what i know from experience of the publishing industry -- no one
should try to lock the 'print-screen' button =)
- what i know from my IT experience - when someone tries to lock the
content/system from user -

you constantly receive the massive monopolies in the markets that lead
to enormous profits >> fixed-price agreements >> other ******

Again, my personal conclusion -- every time you see the IT software or
computing hardware company on modern market with
some enormous profits and 'powers'(you know what i mean, i guess) --
you see the DRM'd platform in worst sense of
among other obvious ethical fails. I could discuss/argue in private
conversation if somebody wish.
First is the case that i see as - obviously, transparently, better
variant  - for Corps, for Economy, Healthy Free Markets and Free work
of Government
>> for Laws >> for the benefits of People (though -- i may say - users, as in some countries people treated like customers, even from Governments that
should represent these people).

So - the case of DRM that relates with Security is a very challenging
case and would be, however, i - see the based on stats
variant, i try to develop and advance on this idea with Mozilla Open
Web Apps, Unhosted.org and other such variants
-- for businesses to be profitable yet - trustful for AR users.

 As one man said on FreedomBoxFoundation list - Trust is what is the
most challenging.

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
> Jonathan,
> I couldn't agree more! 8)
> That's exactly why I setup the http://isweb3here.com test site (still in
> development) and why I think we need to push hard to make sure the
> DAP/RTC WG's enable raw data access to audio and video tracks within
> streams.
> I'm a bit concerned some of the recent "security" related discussions in
> those WGs may be driving people to want to lock down the data access to
> those tracks though 8(
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Sep/0026.html
> Without this...JSARToolkit will be nothing but a cute demo for make
> canned video a little more interactive.
> roBman
> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 14:46 +0900, 전종홍 wrote:
>> This demo would be a Vision of our community group.
>> https://mozillademos.org/demos/remixingreality/demo.html
>> In my thought, this AR feature will be available on the modern web browsers
>> in near future with HTML5 and Rich Web Technologies.
>> At that point, I think we need to change the name of this community group
>> to "Augmented Reality Web Community Group", not "Augmented Reality Community Group".
>> We need to make narrow scope and we need to focus on the web based AR.
>> Best Regards,
>> --- Jonathan Jeon
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ar-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ar-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Blair MacIntyre
>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:24 PM
>> To: roBman@mob-labs.com
>> Cc: Philipp Slusallek; public-poiwg@w3.org; public-declarative3d@w3.org; discussion@arstandards.org; public-ar@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [AR Standards Discussion] Getting started with the W3C AR Community Group
>> I'll strongly +1 this, too.
>> As an example, our reason for developing Argon is that we can't do what we need in a mobile AR browser yet;  but, our long term goal (since we are building on WebKit with custom javascript APIs) would be to have as much as possible of what we are doing folded into something like Webkit.  Now, there are also things we will do in Argon that won't be possible in a browser (given the current browser models), but even those will (hopefully) eventually make it into standard browsers.
>> I think it's important to contextualize AR as "just one way of displaying information" that an app or website may want to leverage;  there shouldn't be "AR apps".  This can only happen when it's possible to create AR views and modes easily using the platforms and tools that are used for the other parts of the applications.
>> Just as there are web-based applications, and native applications, so will there be AR modes for both of those architecture choices.
>> On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
>> > A strong +1 to getting to the point where people can just focus on D
>> >
>> > I am also a big fan of the Web Based AR running "within" a browser.
>> > This doesn't stop native apps benefiting from the standards like that
>> > from the POI WG and DEC3D...but to me it's the "within" a browser that's
>> > most interesting.  Especially from a distribution/market size point of
>> > view.
>> >
>> > That's what I'd like to see the ARCG focus on.
>> >
>> > The rest of the standards discussions seem to clearly belong in a cross
>> > SDO group like ARStandards.org.
>> >
>> >
>> > roBman
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 21:01 +0200, Philipp Slusallek wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I might have a very naive view of AR here but to me it consists of four
>> >> main pieces:
>> >> -- (A) Input: Obtaining information about the real world and the user,
>> >> via special devices (position, orientation, movement, audio, video, ....)
>> >> and AR specific processing such as computer vision and others. This
>> >> could be the main area covered by the AR-CG.
>> >> -- (B) Descriptions of links between real and virtual worlds (POI-WG, I
>> >> believe)
>> >> -- (C) Output: Representing a 3D environment (made up of data from the
>> >> virtual and real world) including the interaction descriptions attached
>> >> to the objects and the scene as such. This is what we are targeting in
>> >> the Dec3D CG.
>> >> -- (D) Application: Program logic that takes the input from (A),
>> >> retrieves appropriate virtual data (B), adds some application specific
>> >> data and logic, and displays it with suitable user interactions using
>> >> (C). If (A-C) are doing a good job, a simple AR application can be
>> >> almost trivial.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, you can make the application logic arbitrarily complex, but
>> >> this should (ideally!) have little to do with (A-C). My point is that in
>> >> the two CGs and the POI-WG we should target to make (A-C) as easy to use
>> >> and as comprehensive as possible (in an incremental way, starting with
>> >> the basic stuff), so that people that want to use AR can focus on (D).
>> >>
>> >> I am a big fan of creating building blocks and this may be a really nice
>> >> split into separate domains of concern and would clearly outline  areas
>> >> of collaboration between the groups.
>> >>
>> >> While I can see many AR implementations (Web and non-Web-based), I would
>> >> still argue for the Web browser as our main target for a very simple
>> >> reason: Its an open platform on which we can easily combine our forces
>> >> to make the best and fastest progress. In particular, it has a huge user
>> >> base already and a highly capable runtime environment (it certainly not
>> >> perfect, but should easily cover at least 80% if not more of all use
>> >> cases). With Mozilla and maybe also Google now being interested in Dec3D
>> >> and WebCL getting quite some attention, we seem to be making progress in
>> >> getting the necessary capabilities into the browsers as well.
>> >>
>> >> Separate non-Web AR browsers would have to replicate some of the same
>> >> runtime capabilities (including JS, Ajax, WebSockets, Worker Threads,
>> >> etc.). I am sure there are people that can do a much better job than our
>> >> current browsers, but I am not sure that the market is there (except in
>> >> niches) to support this next to a quickly moving and broad browser-based
>> >> AR community into which many of the millions of Web developers can
>> >> easily integrate.
>> >>
>> >> The money should be made with the apps and not with the infrastructure.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >>    Philipp
>> >>
>> >> Am 20.08.2011 18:10, schrieb Thomas Wrobel:
>> >>> On 20 August 2011 16:40, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
>> >>>> I'm not sure where the discussion around defining a specific
>> >>>> implementation comes from.  Personally, I've never proposed that in any
>> >>>> way and the points both Blair and Thomas make about this seem logical
>> >>>> and obvious to me so +1 to that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, there could be varying ways to do a in-website AR browser, but
>> >>> thats still just one possible way to make a AR browser.
>> >>> Thus if the group was to focus on " Web Standards based model" that is
>> >>> at the very least a sub-set of possible implementations.
>> >>>
>> >>> eg. If the web model proposes using WebGL, that makes sense for
>> >>> javascript based browsers designed to run on webpages.
>> >>>
>> >>> However, standalone ar browsers (or hybrid browsers) would have no
>> >>> need of that. They could use DirectX, OpenGL/ES, or any other 3D
>> >>> solution they wish. Dictating they have to use the "web standard" to
>> >>> render their 3d wouldn't serve any benefit as all are capable of
>> >>> producing the same visual result - which is really all that matters.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thats what I meant by that definition focusing on a specific
>> >>> implementation. I should have really said type of implementation I
>> >>> guess.
>> >>>
>> >>> Note; I'm not saying theres anything wrong with defining a specific
>> >>> implementation either. At least defining what technologies can be used
>> >>> to make it possible and easy is a must.
>> >>> --
>> >>> The AR field and task is so big subdivision seems sensible to me. So I
>> >>> think each groups goals should be precisely defined.
>> >>>
>> >>> Theres at the very least in my view a few overall separate tasks;
>> >>>
>> >>> a) Defining the data standard to store AR data. (that is, the physical
>> >>> links between real and virtual data, as well as a few
>> >>> standard/recommended formats for this data to be in).
>> >>>
>> >>> b) For web based AR browsers there needs to be a look at precisely
>> >>> what existing things can be used, seeing if they are suitable as they
>> >>> are or need extensions, and if necessary defining new things.
>> >>>
>> >>> c) Overall promotion and branding of AR, as you say, engage in the
>> >>> larger community.  Theres also issues regarding Patents that could
>> >>> effect AR quite negatively in the future. (Apple recently successfully
>> >>> patenting ARs use on transparent displays, for example, could cause
>> >>> problems for HMDs)
>> >>>
>> >>> Those are very rough and of the top of my head.
>> >>> There might be more, or different divisions. But really I am just
>> >>> urging precise definition and separation of the tasks that need to be
>> >>> done in different groups.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Thomas
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 08:43 -0400, Blair MacIntyre wrote:
>> >>>>> I'd agree with Thomas here;  we clearly don't need yet another group
>> >>>>> of people trying to solve the whole problem.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> As an example:  I obviously have an interest in the web spec, since
>> >>>>> that's what we've been implicitly create as part of our Argon work;  I
>> >>>>> would agree that the implementation is a completely separate issue, as
>> >>>>> it's quite easy to imagine very different implementations of a browser
>> >>>>> that render our channels.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> BTW, I also think that there should NOT be an all-encompassing
>> >>>>> standard;  building on other W3C standards where ever possible should
>> >>>>> be a goal, I'd think.  For example, 3d data formats are separate, and
>> >>>>> there is no need (at this point) to have a standard.  X3D has not
>> >>>>> gained traction, and there may be other approaches that are lighter
>> >>>>> and may be more suitable for a "baseline".  Similarly, 2D content
>> >>>>> could be adequately handled by HTML5.  There are already working
>> >>>>> efforts for video access, native code and local device access, and
>> >>>>> other issues relevant to AR.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The real question, thus, is WHAT is AR-specific?  That's what the
>> >>>>> group should focus on.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Aug 20, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Id just point out, if you are focusing on Web-based AR, that thats an
>> >>>>>> AR browser implementation solution - so you shouldn't also cover the
>> >>>>>> standard for the data itself, as they are two very different things*.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> (Just as HTML specification specifies how html code should be
>> >>>>>> displayed - it doesn't say what languages and technology's the browser
>> >>>>>> should use to do that. Browsers can thus be coded in many languages,
>> >>>>>> and use all sorts of techniques to display the same results. AR
>> >>>>>> browsers should be the exact same).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The discussion of the data standard and code to display that standard
>> >>>>>> are thus two separate discussions, and the goal should be quite
>> >>>>>> explicit on which it aims to do.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> [/2 cents]
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -Thomas
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> * with the possibly exception of the 3D format, as web-based tech
>> >>>>>> would limit that to certain types, while non web based browsers could
>> >>>>>> support anything. Thus the non-ones should conform to the web standard
>> >>>>>> 3D anyway. (which I think was more heavily towards being X3D - which
>> >>>>>> as long as it serialises nicely I see no downside to using in any
>> >>>>>> scenario). In either case, this would be a job for the data-standard to only
>> >>>>>> choose formats both lisence free and suitable for web use.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 20 August 2011 04:43, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> the W3C AR Community Group has been established and is now open for
>> >>>>>>> people to join.  Great work on proposing the group Ya Knygar.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Now I think it would be good to make some clear plans about what the
>> >>>>>>> goals of the group are and what the scope of our activities are.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> From my perspective this would simply be:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>       "The development of a Web Standards based model
>> >>>>>>>       for Augmented Reality"
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> If you have a proposal for an alternate goal/scope then please submit it
>> >>>>>>> and we can run a poll to select what the group runs with.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Also, I don't think this group is going to work if we just automatically
>> >>>>>>> make everyone who joins a co-chair 8)  At the moment everyone who has
>> >>>>>>> signed up has been made chair.  I'd rather see us first establish the
>> >>>>>>> goals for the group, then run a poll to decide how the group will be
>> >>>>>>> managed and who the chair/s are.  We don't need to be too formal...but a
>> >>>>>>> little structure would be good I think.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> We will also need to clearly define how this groups is different from
>> >>>>>>> the existing AR related groups that have formed already.  I think the
>> >>>>>>> goal I've proposed above does that (e.g. focus solely on Web Based
>> >>>>>>> AR) ...but more discussion is obviously required.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> So, please join the group and get involved in this important discussion.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>       http://www.w3.org/community/ar/
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> There's a lot happening and a lot of APIs that will directly impact the
>> >>>>>>> future of a Web Based AR are being defined right now. So now is the
>> >>>>>>> perfect time to get this up and running.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> roBman
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> PS: I've cc'd all the related groups I'm involved in to encourage anyone
>> >>>>>>> with a stake in related technologies and APIs to join this group.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> PPS: I've also cc'd in the W3C Community people as I think this
>> >>>>>>> discussion is as much about Community Group process as it is about the
>> >>>>>>> content of our group.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Discussion mailing list
>> >>>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >>>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discussion mailing list
>> > Discussion@arstandards.org
>> > http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@arstandards.org
> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 16:24:53 UTC

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