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

Re: The WG's Three Letters

From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:52:43 +1000
To: public-poiwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1280919163.3376.481.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Personally I think AR WG would be ideal - that's probably obvious based
on my rants so far 8)

But if we just went with POI and clearly defined it in the broader
context that could make sense too.


        AR +1
        POI +0.5


On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:17 +0200, Christine Perey wrote:
> All-
> I'd like to invite people to express their views on the WG's acronym/label.
> If the WG is approved, we are going to live with this label for a while 
> (I trust!).
> Do we have the right (correct/best) three letters?
> It is pretty clear (see [1])  that even if we--those who have posted so 
> far at least--agree that POI is "larger" than geolocated POIs, the rest 
> of the planet still hears (and will continue to use the term to 
> reference) geo-located points.
> Is it our role or duty to re-educate the entire community of people who 
> already use the three letters "POI" and convince them to include the 
> broader definition towards which we seem to be gravitating?
> This (now) is the perfect opportunity to decide if we want to embrace 
> the POI name or explore a new less confusing/misleading three letters 
> which capture the scope on which we plan to work.
> Scope of the WG:
> I would also like to point out that when developing our name and charter 
> we will have to be realistic because the group's chairs [and these 
> individuals or companies have yet to be identified [2]) will be held to 
> certain deliverables.
> The charter is developed in order to ensure that whatever is produced 
> and contributed is royalty free (something about "normative" something, 
> Dan A spoke to me about :-) )
> Personally, I believe that there is room and enthusiasm to extend the 
> initial charter to include exploring (maybe without being held to 
> produce) an open interface for Social AR (see the thread which began 
> with this post [3] on July 22) and RoBman suggested [4] that we c/should 
> also be looking into the "viewer" or "presentation layer.
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 10:55:24 UTC

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