- From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:37:52 +0200
- To: Alex Hill <ahill@gatech.edu>
- CC: public-poiwg@w3.org
Hi Alex, Thank you for joining the conversation! The topic of coordinate systems (if they are adequate or inadequate) and how they might be extended or adopted with/for AR applications has been raised (is still a potential topic of discussion) on this list. You might want to scan some of the archives of the list [1] between Aug 2-13 to catch up with the points which were made by members of the list on that topic. It is a multi-faceted topic even at the center of the debate over what the group should call itself and its mission. I don't believe the matter has been resolved to the total satisfaction of all members of the group. It may never be. GUIDs have not been a topic of discussion (yet). In prowling around on the topic, I found [2]. Looks to be about 22 months since there was any movement on this. This work done in the IETF [3] expired in Aug 1998. Is there a UUID or GUID expert on the list who can shed some light on how GUIDs might or might not be suitable for AR? -- 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/ [2] http://openguid.net/specification [3] http://www.opengroup.org/dce/info/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.txt On 8/20/2010 4:13 PM, Alex Hill wrote: > Sorry for the delay in weighing in. > Please let know if I am not following any protocol. > > On Aug 18, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > >> Might be of interest here, re current trends/activities... >> >> Dan >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk >> <mailto:John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>> >> Date: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:23 PM >> Subject: [uk-government-data-developers] Couple of Ordnance Survey things >> To: uk-government-data-developers@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:uk-government-data-developers@googlegroups.com> >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> The OS OpenSpace Wiki is now live: >> >> http://osopenspacewiki.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page >> >> and the TOID lookup service is now back up and running: >> >> http://opentoids.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/toidservice/ >> >> example: >> >> http://opentoids.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/toidservice/location/300000,300000 > > Does this effort seek to assign a GUID to each physical object > (buildiings, lakes, etc.)? > I find this very interesting since I feel that only being able to refer > to coordinates in space is inadequate for AR. > It might suffice for the current crop of applications, but I imagine a > future where content is very tightly registered with the content in the > physical world. > For one thing, no one wants to author a sign on the top of a store by > climbing to the roof (if accessible) and determining the coordinates. > And, authoring content on the side of a vehicle means referring to the > vehicle and not any specific coordinates. > Another reason I am in favor of a GUID is that I suspect there will be > numerous competing representations of buildings and structures to choose > from. > And, given multiple databases providing model data (likely) for > structures, one would want to avoid collisions (i.e. two models of the > same building visible). > A GUID aids some of the discussions about where content is meant to be > placed (i.e on the corner of 5th and Spring, in the middle of the > courtyard). > Does one want to associate their content with -85.0,34.0 or at the Klaus > Computing building? > Both have different semantic meanings and practical consequences. > I'd also like to call into question this whole concept of giving > buildings and structures coordinates. > Although the utility on a map is obvious, the practical value of a > floating tag at the exact center of a building is unclear when on is > viewing a small section of it. > The actual "location" of a building needs to be tied to the "extent" of > that structure and hence to the "officially accepted model" of that > structure (and it's origin's relation to the coordinates). > Granted, a combination of a model and coordinates is likely sufficient, > but this just highlights that coordinates in themselves are inadequate > for any real AR application. > >> >> see British National Grid for more coordinates: >> >> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/images/userImages/misc/education/nationalgrid/natgrid2.gif >> >> John >> This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and >> may contain confidential information. If you have received this email >> in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must >> not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person. >> >> Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to >> the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. >> Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. >> We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior >> notice. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation. >> >> Ordnance Survey >> Romsey Road >> Southampton SO16 4GU >> Tel: 08456 050505 >> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk >> > > Alex Hill Ph.D. > Postdoctoral Fellow > Augmented Environments Laboratory > Georgia Institute of Technology > http://www.augmentedenvironments.org/lab >
Received on Monday, 23 August 2010 11:38:26 UTC