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

Re: Next steps

From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:07:07 -0400
Cc: Jens de Smit <jens.desmit@surfnet.nl>, Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>, 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <43676C22-9389-4D63-B8B5-310A783751F3@cs.columbia.edu>
To: "Hermodsson, Klas" <Klas.Hermodsson@sonyericsson.com>
We seem to be talking about several different use cases, and there's a danger of commingling them. I suspect this is because each of us has a particular application in mind, but we're (presumably) trying to cover a somewhat broader area.

If I'm parsing this correctly, there are at least two broad scenarios:

(1) "AR": device detects a nearby POI (building, sign, ...) and performs some related action, visualization or other media rendering;

(2) "GIS" POI: An application wants to search for suitable POIs in a defined area, and then render them in some way. Active behavior or 3D wizardry is not necessary or called for, searchability, simplicity and uniform structure are.

I think there's a common intersection, but probably easiest by having pointers to properties and behavior that can then be ignored by other applications. For example, a POI "object" can easily include a set of URIs that contain related media, with appropriate tagging.


On Aug 20, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Hermodsson, Klas wrote:

> On Aug 20, 2010, at 9:14 , Jens de Smit wrote:
> On 19/08/2010 09:49, Hermodsson, Klas wrote:
> I think two levels (i.e. [criteria]<>[data]) is too simplistic. I would like to see a three level approach:
> [criteria]<>[representation]<>[actual data]
> I'm not really seeing this (yet). They way you put it, isn't the
> representation implicit in the type of data that's being linked? As in,
> if the [actual data] is X3D we're dealing with a "visual" representation
> (of the subtype "3D model") and if it's an OGG container with a Vorbis
> stream inside it's an "aural" representation, etc.
> I may be using some terms that are not really suitable above. Let's take a concrete example to illustrate:
> - Company A has a sign with their logo on outside their stores
> - When this logo is detected the company wants a spinning sphere with the logo on to be displayed while a music piece is playing
> - If you select/activate/click this spinning sphere the latest ad is played back as a video
> Criteria: if computer vision detection of the logo occurs (criteria expressed in suitable markup language)
> Representation: a spinning sphere + music (layout and resources of this representation expressed in suitable markup language)
> Actual data: the video ad (content in specific format stored reached through some URI and over suitable protocol)
> If we then consider that one device is a audio only device and one device is a touch display mobile then representation and actual data may change but criteria is the same. I was just thinking about the separation of these three parts. Maybe what I call representation is what other people call data? Note that both representation and data may need "layout" markup to explain how it should appear in our real world.
> Best regards,
> Klas
Received on Sunday, 22 August 2010 20:07:54 UTC

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