W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poiwg@w3.org > August 2010

Re: thoughts towards a draft AR WG charter

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:41:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4C5838BA.6040904@perey.com>
To: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
CC: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, public-poiwg@w3.org
Agree 100%, including not being tied to using a specific term such as 
trigger, your last statement:


 > Whether "trigger" is or not the exact term we want to use, it does
 > seem fundamentally to me this is the way to go about it.

On 8/3/2010 5:06 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> If the term trigger is used elsewhere, its best to avoid.
> However, I believe the point of using a term like trigger is that it
> doesn't just refer to a location triggering a bit of data to appear,
> but also could refer to image based triggers, or other potential
> trigger types.
>
> You could, I suppose, think of them as "auto triggers". Triggered by
> the user moving, or things coming into their FOV rather then a click
> which is a more active form of user triggering. As you say, these
> would involving query a database at an interval, but it would be
> something automatically done by the browser, and not something
> specifically coded for like with onClick style javascript events.
>
> The triggers in this context are more akin to links...associating one
> thing with another with the code for them to work fixed and part of
> the browser itself.
> Only in this case the association is not between two web pages, but
> rather between some real-world device based event, and a bit of
> virtual information.
>
> I think Rob Manson expressed it well as a form of triplet;
>
>> "Well...if we did use the "trigger" model then I'd express this as the
>> following RDFa style triplet:
>>
>>        this [location] is a [trigger] for [this information]
>>
>> POIs in this format would then become the archetypal AR relationship.
>> The most critical and common subset of the broader relationship:
>>
>   >       this [sensor data bundle] is a [trigger] for [this information]
>>
>> In the standard POIs case the minimum [sensor data bundle] is "lat/lon"
>> and then optionally "relative magnetic orientation"."
>
>
> You could also just think of it as [criteria]<>[data linked to criteria].
> The client would parse over the agrivated stream of these triggers,
> looking for matches, and then displaying the data linked if it finds
> one. (either inlined or remotely linked)
>
 > Whether "trigger" or not is the exact term we want to use, it does
 > seem fundamentally to me this is the way to go about it.
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:42:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:25 UTC