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

Re: The WG's Three Letters

From: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 17:13:55 -0400
Message-Id: <1C23C420-5DEE-4FA3-A3E9-6478ED4BDABA@w3.org>
To: public-poiwg@w3.org
Hi all,

On Aug 4, 2010, at 5:17 AM, 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.

I don't know that it's really that large a problem.  Outside of this technical sphere, if one were to say the Sea of Tranquility is a point of interest, I don't think a layperson would object.  Likewise for points of interest that are not "now", e.g. "the Battle of Concord battlefield" is a POI, despite it not happening now.  I don't feel we've stretched it 

> 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.

I may be missing some of the options, but they appear to be:

2. Augmented Reality WG
3. A name that encompass 1 and/or 2
4. A wholly new term

My opinions are:

I see POI as closest to our main deliverable and initial goal.  It's an established term that's recognizable and seems unlikely to fade or fall out of favor over time.  The scope may sound narrow, but the work is of a significant size.

An Augmented Reality WG strikes me as a pretty broad and kind of vague name.  It would also require definition wrangling as AR means all things to all people.  It implies a broad scope too, and it's unclear what the deliverables would be that address AR that also aren't reusable outside of AR, etc.

With regards to the third option, IIRC a combination of POI and AR was floated at the workshop, but I can't find it.  "POI for AR" is too restrictive, as these should be reusable POIs outside of AR.  "POI and AR" seems like the worst of the first two options combined.

A new term would seem to require more education and defining.

I also wouldn't rule out that we may well have a better picture of what needs standardizing beyond POI and recharter and possibly rename too.

> 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 :-) )

Yes, in order to participate members must make an IP commitment which is based on the Recommendation track deliverables in the charter.

> 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.

I've added a Social AR vocabulary for POIs Note in the wiki charter [1], and put in a liaison with OStatus too.

WRT to presentation layer, what is the deliverable there?

Moving on to other messages in this thread:

On Aug 4, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Chandra Sekhar P. wrote:
> 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.

I feel the exact opposite as I laid out above.  It's not entirely clear what Recommendation track deliverables we would end up with that are specific to AR, and I don't think the definition of POI that I laid out at [2] is really all that out there.

> Do we need to stick to 3 letter word only?


On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
> 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).

My gut feeling is that we'll have our hands full defining a POI format, and specialized AR properties on top of that without getting into protocols.  With the protocols and APIs that are already out there, we'll get pretty far.

On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Christine Perey wrote:
> Would it be good to --how does one go about-- adding Ostatus group as one of the external liaisons on the new (Draft) WG charter [2]?

I've added OStatus to the external groups bit of the charter.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Draft_Charter
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2010 21:13:56 UTC

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