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

Re: The WG's Three Letters

From: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:14:57 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikoET0r=doU4y1sgxf1pv2+tG-+8_pvTHyZ9+_z@mail.gmail.com>
To: roBman@mob-labs.com
Cc: public-poiwg@w3.org
+1 from me.
Provided that one word change isn't forgotten about later ;)

On 8 August 2010 05:38, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 19:34 +0200, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>> [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.
>
> I really strongly agree with this point Thomas...and I think that's
> what's been causing me the most discombobulation 8)
>
> And after much thought I have a cunning plan I'd like to propose.
>
> First let me state my underlying assumptions.
>
>        1. Points of Interest is too limited.  It implies just one type
>        of geometry - a point.
>
>        2. The term POI has stuck in people's minds and is now the
>        default entry point for a lot of AR.
>
>        3. AR is a REALLY broad domain that encompasses all sorts of
>        things - including many we probably won't get agreement on or
>        just plain haven't thought of yet.
>
> In summary, AR is too broad and Point of Interest is too limited.
>
> So...here's my proposal..
>
> =======================================================================
> I believe we should setup a POI WG where the term POI stands for
> "Patterns Of Interest".
> =======================================================================
>
> The scope of this group would then be to define standards/specifications
> for linking sensor/y data patterns to content.
>
> The starting point for this group would be the example pattern of GPS
> derived lat, lon & optional orientation/altitude/time.  That is what we
> currently all seem to accept as the heart of a Point of Interest.
>
> This would then clearly position our work as a specific integration task
> built upon the work of the Semantic Sensor Networks group [1] and the
> Linked Data group [2], etc.
>
> We would not be re-creating the wheel from these groups
> perspective...just integrating their existing work into the very
> specific perspective of AR.
> NOTE: I'm not suggesting this will be trivial...just clarifying our
> position relative to these other groups and their work.
>
> Our goal would not be to define a broad standard that covered all of AR
> (probably impossible).  However, we would be creating an open ended
> specification that was a key enabler for AR in general.
>
> We would be able to start with concrete, commonly accepted examples and
> use cases right now.  Yet still leave the door open to a much broader
> and richer direction.
>
> So the 3 key elements of the standards/specifications we would be
> working towards would be [sensor/y data], [content] and the [links]
> between them.  The [sensor/y data] would be based upon and informed by
> the work from the SSN and Capture API [3] groups.  The [links] would be
> based upon the LLD and related groups work.  And the content would be
> the open ended presentation layer built upon the wealth of existing web
> and more specifically 3D and audio content standards.
>
> NOTE: I have some existing analysis of current systems and structural
> modes that I'd be happy to contribute to this discussion too if we agree
> to head in this direction.  I think some of this clearly highlights how
> our data processing/value chain creates a very different perspective
> from how these other groups and web technologies in general currently
> see the world.
>
>
> So, to some extent this is a bit of linguistic slight of hand/tongue.
> However, by just changing one word I think it would allow us to embrace
> the broad appeal of the term POI while still addressing the even broader
> needs of a future facing AR related standard.  It would allow us to be
> more focused than the overwhelming term AR suggests, while enabling a
> really key pillar that supports it.
>
>
> I hope I've communicated this idea clearly and I'll look forward to
> hearing everyone's feedback/thoughts.
>
>
> roBman
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/charter
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-capture-api-20100401/
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 8 August 2010 13:15:30 UTC

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