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

Re: thoughts towards a draft AR WG charter

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:53:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4C60085D.2070501@perey.com>
To: public-poiwg@w3.org
hi Dan and Matt,

Thanks for carefully articulating what you see to be the challenges.

To me, Dan's post [1] makes different points but is very consistent (at 
least not at odds) with the post by Rob which followed sequentially [2] 
but was part of the thread "The Three Letters of the WG".


could those on the list, including (a) those with the most W3C positions 
and (b) those with the most AR implementation experience, post what they 
feel are the strengths or weaknesses of the proposal in [2] to establish 
a Patterns of Interest (POI) WG which covers Points of Interest as a 
specific case?


Spime Wrangler

mobile +41 79 436 68 69
VoIP (from US) +1 (617) 848-8159
Skype (from anywhere) Christine_Perey

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Aug/0031.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Aug/0032.html

On 8/7/2010 5:55 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> My personal hope is that we see POIs as an artifact and place-oriented
> view into this kind of Web of factual data, and consequently can take
> an ambitious approach to scoping and extensibility in which the
> species of a tree, the number of pupils of a school etc are all
> relevant information and discoverable within the POI description. And
> [crucially if our little screens aren't to fill up with clutter]
> available to use as properties for filtering on.

> 'Point' has an awkward ambiguity; it suggests an infinitely small
> thing, but also something like 'place or location'. But perhaps you do
> mean a bit of both of those?
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 13:53:59 UTC

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