- From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:47:26 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: ÀüÁ¾È« <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, public-device-apis@w3.org, public-poiwg@w3.org, AR Standards Discussion <discussion@arstandards.org>
- Message-ID: <4D790EAE.4060806@perey.com>
Hello Robin et al., It is safe to say that there are multiple groups which are working in parallel towards similar objectives having to do with Augmented Reality becoming ubiquitous across many digital platforms. There are even some research labs which are raising awareness of the need for standards for AR(e.g., GA Tech). The hope is that we are/will be increasingly aware of one another and will not begin (or continue) working at cross purposes... Thank you for sending out the URL to the recent Technology Review article about the Argon browser. I've been meaning to use this as a discussion starter though I would go in another direction than this memo. The Technology Review article is about the GA Tech project, not a community project, however, lessons learned could inform us all. I am not part of the Device API community, however, Rob Manson, an fellow searcher for solutions, monitors it. I am active in the POI WG and the other community which Rob Manson introduced to you and which was spawned and "lives" outside the stewardship of the W3C. It would be great to see a mapping of all the AR relevant activity/discussions within the W3C. I'm only involved in POI WG. Over the past 4-5 months the scope of the POI WG has gradually (and then quickly) been narrowing to focus on Points of Interest which are (usually) fixed in space (and time) in order to get a first draft specification for location-based services and better understand what can be achieved/established as a base. I am told that the logic behind this is that this "base" specification could then become the basis of a second generation spec, designed to support (more) AR use cases and scenarios in the future. Non-W3C work: In addition to interest in several W3C groups, there is AR related activity in OMA, ISO, Web3D Consortium, Khronos Group, OGC and probably many more industry alliances and SDOs. The question is how do these work together? Or how will the organizations avoid conflicts/redundancy? You may learn more about the organically forming cross-organizational and international community working towards open AR via multiple industry groups and SDOs by visiting http://www.arstandards.org and further by subscribing to http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/news It is clear that there are many standardsalready available today (and increasingly in the future there will be more which will) contribute greatly to the interoperability of AR experiences, content and tools, regardless of whether the user is "on the Web" or not. Anyone from any company or organization which is working on standards in existing bodies is invited to join (no fees, this is informal). We use the mailing lists and also have face-to-face meetings. Our next meeting will be in mid-June in Taiwan. The activity of DAP is interesting and appeared on our radar in October 2010 when members of the above community met in Seoul and again last month during the second meeting of this community. To my knowledge, there is work which could be undertaken in DAP in conjunction with other groups, such as Khronos Group, and OMA. If a representative of the DAP specifically with agenda to focus on AR could liaise with the larger (W3C and non-W3C) work groups and communities, I'm sure that the benefits would be significant and work would accelerate. To give you a specific example which came out of the grassroots community... Last week Rob put together a first draft of an open letter to sub-systems manufacturers <https://docs.google.com/document/d/16FQ8yWPh9JG_foMFKprTKarIbrc6Q9FN5aBzdeUkwms/edit?hl=en&authkey=COCr4-wM&pli=1#> about the needs for AR. This is a synthesis of past traffic from our AR Standards discussion list and remarks/presentations and position papers contributed to the second international AR standards meeting <http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/february-meeting/>. See outputs page here <http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/february-meeting-outputs/>. Warm regards, Christine Spime Wrangler cperey@perey.com mobile +41 79 436 6869 VoIP +1 (617) 848-8159 Skype Christine_Perey On 3/10/11 10:18 AM, ÀüÁ¾È« wrote: > Hi, Robin, > > I think we need to discuss about this topic with POI WG [1]. > > In last year, we have discussed about various issues on standardization for AR on the Web [2]. > As result of workshop, POI WG aimed to developing the standard for AR on the Web. > > Best Regards, > > --- Jonathan Jeon > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/charter/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/w3car/report.html > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:40 AM > To: public-device-apis@w3.org > Subject: Open standards augmented reality > > > Hi, > > I just came across this: > > http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/35065/?p1=A1&a=f > https://research.cc.gatech.edu/polaris/ > > I was wondering if anyone here was aware of this work, had thoughts, etc. related to rechartering. >
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:48:01 UTC