Re: thoughts towards a draft AR WG charter

Hey Marc,

I think your point about not creating misunderstanding is a fair one.
However I think there's an opportunity to use that to the groups
advantage.

I also understand your point about "augment", however it's a verb not a
noun and your use of that on the Hoppala site really seems to be trying
to nominalise it.

I'm obviously biased though 8)


roBman



On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 11:16 -0400, HOPPALA! - Marc René Gardeya wrote:
> I like the structure of "Patterns of interest", however I'd rather go for a different acronym to avoid misunderstand and mixup with the term "Point of interest".
> 
> A POI traditionally is basically a location, or something at a specific location. But in AR we're talking about much more than that. That's why I started to replace to term POI with the term "augment" in my recent works. Because that's what it is: it's augments. No matter if we're talking about something placed at a geographic location or moving virtual objects. The term "augment" helped to easily talk about AR beyond classical POIs.
> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> 
> Am 09.08.2010 um 09:53 schrieb Christine Perey:
> 
> > 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".
> > 
> > @All
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Christine
> > 
> > Spime Wrangler
> > 
> > cperey@perey.com
> > 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:
> > <snip>
> >> 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.
> >> 
> > <snip>
> > 
> >> '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 Friday, 13 August 2010 00:04:05 UTC