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

RE: The WG's Three Letters

From: Chandra Sekhar P. <chandrasekhar.p@lge.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:58:41 +0530
To: <cperey@perey.com>
Cc: <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <015401cb33c8$31b25e40$641218ac@LGE.NET>
I tend to agree with roBman in this regard.

I feel 'AR' related token is more apt than 'POI' as we need to ultra-define
and educate the word POI to the public. And it is justifiable by
consideration that we toying several tokens like mobile AR, web AR, social
AR etc in our on-going discussions.

Do we need to stick to 3 letter word only?


-----Original Message-----
Sent: None
To: public-poiwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: The WG's Three Letters

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
> 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 11:34:31 UTC

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