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

Re: The WG's Three Letters

From: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:19:44 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2TqcGv_jOGxqcodW1RteQKD1K6n1_zc7JRYO3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chandra Sekhar P." <chandrasekhar.p@lge.com>
Cc: cperey@perey.com, public-poiwg@w3.org
If it doesn't have to be a 3 letter word. I always liked Physical
Links. Or...umm...Plinks.
Might sound a little silly though.
That would cover both POI as well as image based links, or other forms
of data necessary to link physical world things to virtual data.

That said, I'm not bothered too much by exactly whats chosen, as long
as its made clear what it defines and we don't constrict it too much.

===

As for social AR, I am still passionate we need a complementary
server<>server protocol in order to ensure that personal and secure
group communication can be done without requiring all users on the
same server. (for this I rather like the email analogy, we don't want
everyone having to use Hotmail in order to send private messages to
each-other).

That said, we must also not get too distracted. Any server<>server,
social, communication protocol should be able to implement and use the
exact same data formats and standards set up for general 1<>many style
AR use's. Social is thus a secondary problem that would merely be a
way to exchange data already established by solving our first bunch of
problems.



On 4 August 2010 13:28, Chandra Sekhar P. <chandrasekhar.p@lge.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 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?
>
> -Chandru
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> 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.
>
> So:
>
>        AR +1
>
>        POI +0.5
>
>
> roBman
>
>
> 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 12:20:17 UTC

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