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 19:52:21 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimnN3MMONogy_x7vPobcF2Wp1xEiNZ7NiFvQTEd@mail.gmail.com>
To: cperey@perey.com
Cc: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, public-poiwg@w3.org
"Are there specialized needs for Social AR which are not met by the
current Social Web/Federated Web protocols under development?"

Well, I'm not aware of much that fits the bill at the moment. Theres a
lot of development branded under "social" so I could well have missed
something that fits.

Ideally you want a "feed" of Physical<>Virtual links you can subscribe
too. Then each feed would be visually presented to you in some way,
probably as layers in your field of view.
The difference between a AR use of geolocated data and a web based one
is most of the data will be called up automatically, rather on the
loading of a page. In fact, when dealing with AR viewpoints, a "page"
is an arbitrary concept).

So the requirements I see are;

* The ability to both publish and receive feeds without needing to run
your own server.
* The ability to selectively allow certain people access to the feeds.
(ideally with read/write options)
* As close to real-time updating as possible.
* Federated, so that anyone can run a server and people can
communicate with those on other servers freely.

If theres existing protocols that fit the bill, by all means they
should be built upon rather then pointlessly making a new one.
I could only see XMPP/WFP fitting out of the ones I knew.

Critically though, whatever is used should as much as possible be
matching developments for AR/Geo-locations standards elsewhere. So the
data feed into these feeds to associate points or objects with data
should be the same data used in static pages, allowing an easy
compatibility.

My own gut feelings are a feed based approach will probably be more
used for AR on mobile devices in the long run (The "dream" AR specs we
will hopefully get in a few years). So we should at least keep these
things in mind.

On 6 August 2010 11:54, Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com> wrote:
> Hi Matt, You have stated the options for a WG name clearly.
>
> I hope that people on the list will take the time to express their
> thoughts/concerns, etc.
>
> On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
>>
>> 1. POI WG
>> 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.
>>
> AR is broad, and broad appeal (based on a small sample).
>
> As you point out, it suffers from different handicaps (compared with POI
> drawbacks).
> ?
>
>> 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.
>>
> I don't recall another name at the workshop. Perhaps someone else who was
> there does?
>
>> 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.
>>
> 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?
>
>
> On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> Matt, Could you please point to a URL which explains the IP commitment?
>
> Also could you please explain the terms of participation?
> A lot of those on this list are not members of W3C.
>
> If I understand correctly, when the work of a WG begins in earnest, messages
> will go onto a new list called "members-xxxwg@w3.org" and this list
> "public-poiwg@w3.org" will quieten down/only be used for public
> announcements.
>
> On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
>>
>> WRT to presentation layer, what is the deliverable there?
>
> this would be one for Rob Manson to take and flesh out, I think. Or maybe
> there is someone else who has strong feeling about what I called the
> presentation layer.
>>
>> Moving on to other messages in this thread:
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Chandra Sekhar P. wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> In cases like this, the community of stakeholders needs to express itself.
>
>
>> On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>
> On 8/5/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I hope those on this list will express themselves regarding this point.
>
> Are there specialized needs for Social AR which are not met by the current
> Social Web/Federated Web protocols under development?
>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Draft_Charter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 17:52:56 UTC

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