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

RE: Next steps

From: ȫ <hollobit@etri.re.kr>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:31:01 +0900
Message-ID: <03F823891AF33D499971F7DDAB8EAD1704483142@email2>
To: "Matt Womer" <mdw@w3.org>, <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Hi Matt, 

Thank you for your great support. 

Regarding WG's deliverables, I think we'd like to consider follow items. 

- Augmented Reality Landscape  : (maybe a group note) 
  : The goal of this document is to surveys the AR landscape by examining what 
   market-leading Augmented Reality services address issues around 

- Physical Object Identifier : (maybe Recommendations)  
  : it's a URI scheme. and it's a unified identifier (and markup) for any physical object in augmented environment(product, person, location ...) 
  Poi:ufid.<ufid number> 
  Poi:epc.<epc code> 
  Poi:ean.<ean code> 
  Poi:isbn.<isbn number> 
- Requirements of Augmented Reality Interoperability : (maybe a group note) 
 : This document will specifie usage scenarios, goals and requirements for interoperable augmented reality services. 

Best Regards, 

--- Jonthan Jeon 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-poiwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-poiwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matt Womer
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:44 AM
To: public-poiwg@w3.org
Subject: Next steps

Hi everyone,

We've had a lot of good discussion here, I think it's time we start moving forward on the work at hand. Here's what I propose:

We've got clear support and momentum from the Workshop [1] for a WG that develops a POI data format Recommendation and Note(s) about AR and Web standards. These two items were deemed sufficient to warrant a WG, they have a clear and obvious benefit to both AR and the Web, and they have attracted people to the effort.

In the charter there are three deliverables: the POI data format as a Recommendation, a WG Note detailing extensions for AR, and an "Augmented Reality and Web Standards" Note. I believe these are reasonable starting points, because:

The POI data format deliverables are concrete and well known. They are "low hanging fruit", which isn't to say they are easy: they are quite significant in fact. (Dan Brickley nicely demonstrated just how complex they could be [2].) I put some stakes in the ground for common properties of POIs [3] and suggested some limits to keep the specification tractable (e.g. limits on shape complexity, notions of proximity, etc).

The AR and Web standards note is more open and rather vague -- it's a bit of a catch all, which makes me nervous, but it's concrete enough to get started. With proper scoping at the outset, it should also be doable, useful and lead us to a better understanding of how AR and the Web may come together.

I am hesitant to broaden the focus of the WG much beyond those items as they are concrete, useful, tractable, and yet significant in size and scope. While on the other hand, it's not clear to me that the other topics discussed share these characteristics just yet. Remember: one purpose of a charter is to establish the scope so that members can be confident in their intellectual property commitments. These commitments help to keep the Web open and free. The Working Group will have plenty to do, but also plenty of opportunities to discuss future work items. We can always add new items when the charter expires, or if necessary through early rechartering.

That being said, I'd like to move ahead with getting the charter [4] before the W3C membership. I will be editing it to remove the placeholder and TBDs and put dates in place. The W3C Process [5] has W3C management, Member and Director reviews which total eight weeks. This means we could have our first teleconference in the first week of October, be formed in time for ISMAR [6], and aligns nicely to have our first face-to-face meeting at the yearly member meeting in November [7]. We have selected Andrew Braun of Sony Ericsson to be Chair, and I'll be the staff contact. Based on conversations I've had with members, I'm confident that this work will have support, though the review process could result in modifications.

I'm excited about this work -- it will form a solid foundation on which to build the future of Augmented Reality and the Web.


-Matt Womer

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/w3car/report
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Aug/0031
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Jul/0042
[4] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Draft_Charter
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#GAGeneral
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Aug/0039
[7] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 13:31:45 UTC

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