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

Re: [uk-government-data-developers] Couple of Ordnance Survey things

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:37:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4C725D90.6080301@perey.com>
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

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