- From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:24:20 +0200
- To: Blair MacIntyre <blair@cc.gatech.edu>
- CC: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, hhalpin@w3.org, public-ar@w3.org, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, ij@w3.org
Thanks to Rob for his post a few minutes ago suggesting that W3C AR Community Group focus (exclusively?) on "within browser" [Philipp's (D) in the memo [1]]. I had started this reply (below) so I still want/feel the need to send it (for the record). On 8/20/11 2:43 PM, 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. <snip> 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. <snip> The real question, thus, is WHAT is AR-specific? That's what the group should focus on. I agree 100% with Blair's clear statements. And with the one most important question. I'm probably not the only one to agree :-) With respect to the first statement, I would like to add that I am very concerned about fragmentation. Already some (many?) groups are suffering from lack of participation. Each organization must have a clear agenda and purpose. Otherwise it will not reach critical mass and its work will lack relevancy. During the first virtual meeting of the AR Standards Community in early July [2], I took the action item to develop an elevator pitch approaching a mission statement for the community. I have been working on this (it is long) and will post separately only on the AR Standards Community discussion mailing list. If you are interested in reading/learning and contributing to the development of that mission, please monitor and participate in the Discussion mailing list [3]. With respect to Blair's second statement, this goes even more widely than "just W3C". There cannot be (and we should not hint that there ever will be) a "universal" (all encompassing) standard for AR. As for the question (what is AR-specific?), people need to speak up in response to Rob's proposal. Setting the example, I say +1. In addition or alternatively, if you have a different opinion, please state it for others to consider. Christine Spime Wrangler cperey@perey.com mobile +41 79 436 6869 VoIP +1 (617) 848-8159 Skype Christine_Perey [1] http://arstandards.org/pipermail/discussion/2011-August/000274.html [2] http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/virtual-community-meetings/#July19Agenda [3] http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion On 8/20/11 2:43 PM, 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 >
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 13:25:07 UTC