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

Re: The WG's Three Letters

From: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 19:34:27 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimM9gHk6rgdJrJnUQ6Ako42PE9A1fYk0H2xLuQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: jens.desmit@surfnet.nl
Cc: cperey@perey.com, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, public-poiwg@w3.org
(sorry, meant to reply to all)

"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"

Not on those areas, no. POI is perfectly fine for things outside the
earth or the current time.
The only concern I see is for non fixed points.

A physical link between real and virtual can also deal with, for
example, data linked to QR codes or specific image markers.
POI doesn't really fit those areas nearly so well, but they are just
as much in need of a standard, imho.

[Real object]  << [Image look up] >> [Virtual Data]   would be the
systemic link needed. And then you have an (optional) output of a AR
object being aligned to the images position.

Its the link between the real and virtual that seems the "core" of
whats being done here, rather then a just link to space/time points.

On 6 August 2010 15:18, Jens de Smit <jens.desmit@surfnet.nl> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Sorry, I am not following you on the above sentence. Perhaps you are
>> saying that a WG can begin with one charter, one name. Then, after
>> achieving something (hopefully its charter), it redefines itself,
>> defines new charter, new name.
>> In both options 1 and 2 above, those in the "fold" know. And it doesn't
>> really matter what those outside know or do not know.
>> is there a scenario in which the name of the group is "AR WG" and the
>> initial charter is to work on the POI data format with broad
>> applicabilities?
> Perhaps we could go take the "AR" or "POI" tag and spin it a bit to
> prevent people from jumping to conclusions too quickly without inventing
> a completely new term? Something along the line of "AR Formatting WG",
> "AR Markup WG" or "AR and POI Formatting WG". Shorthands for those would
> be ARF WG, ARM WG or ARPF WG respectively.
> The idea is that the long name would be specific enough to give people
> the gist of what the group is doing while the short name would identify
> it accurately without giving people false impressions. In the end we'll
> always need to explain what we do anyway, but by choosing a name that is
> neither very broad nor very specific we may prevent people coming into
> the group without huge misconceptions.
> Regards,
> Jens
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 17:35:00 UTC

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