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

Discussion themes/topics -suggested framework

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:29:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4CC7D4F0.50509@perey.com>
To: roBman@mob-labs.com
CC: "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
On 10/27/2010 1:03 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
 > Based on the threads from Marco/Raj/Dan/Thomas/Christine/Carl/Gary it
 > seems like it would be really useful to break the work into several
 > abstract levels.
 >
 > Some of these seem like they are already under way but I think it would
 > be great if we could agree as a group what a high-level overview is.

Rob, All,

Agree with Rob that it seems our discussion would benefit from having a 
map or framework.

I think that the framework Rob proposes has merit.

It might include two more elements not captured by Rob:

A. Terminology
   i asked in a previous post that we clarify who this is for and its 
scope. No responses (yet!)

   Perhaps this is part of the use cases, perhaps necessary to properly 
frame the use cases

   *Why is this important to address* to assure clear discussions in the 
future amongst ourselves and with wider community (including those who 
are not concerned with our use cases, etc).

B. Filling the Gap
   As we have begun (see DanBri's and Carl Reed's messages) we must 
never forget (always keep in mind) that our work must address where the 
needs are greatest/most urgent and where the potential for the W3C to 
contribute the highest.

   *Why is this important at the highest level* there are many well 
established standards and other existing, powerful communities (e.g., 
Khronos Group, IETF-Henning Schulzrinne's work on Service URNs, OMA, 
ISO) who have already established protocols and published interfaces.
  It will be difficult but, as others have said, we must avoid 
re-invention/always strive for extensibility.

Below I am using Rob's three high level components for discussion and 
adding what I think is missing from the first two:

   1. Use Cases
    *Why is this at the highest level*   to "bound" discussions and work.

    What are the use cases on which we will focus?

    Some proposed from International AR Standards meeting
    Some discussion from DanBri on this topic
    Go through back discussions on the list

and (from Rob's memo):
 > how do specific examples fit into a POI model?
 > Specifically, how do we treat NFT (Natural Feature Tracking) and object
 > recognition/overlays

   *What is excluded or postponed* for future assessment/work?

    Suggestion: When we exclude or postpone a use case, we should 
provide (for future reference/justifications) the reasons these use 
cases are postponed (and what will indicate it is time to focus on them?)


   2. Data Models
   *Why is this at the highest level* this is the meat of the matter

>          the data describing the  physical
>          placement of the POI (e.g. lat/lon/alt/x-rot/y-rot/z-rot).

   Physical placement of object is one specific instance of what we have 
called, in the past discussions on this list, the "Trigger"

>          Second the content the POI is linked to (e.g. title,
>          description, type, keywords, favicon/thumbnail, 3D model, etc.).
>          NOTE: These are just indicative and are not meant to be a
>          complete or limiting set.  Just a reference for discussion.

  the response to the detection of the trigger is formatted, stored, etc 
using conventions
>

  3. Expressions

[IS THIS THE BEST TITLE?]

>          The different serialisation formats that the use cases will use
>          to embed or represent the data model (e.g. JSON, XML, HTML,
>          XHTML, RDFa, UF, BCP[1], etc.)
>
>
>> From here it seems like it would be easier to isolate specific
> discussions and debates and then relate them back to an overall
> framework.
>
> It could also allow us to dive much deeper into each of these specific
> aspects when needed.
>
> So please +1 or -1 this as a very preliminary first step.  And I'd love
> to hear what people think is missing from this at either the "abstract
> level" layer or at the "description/discussion" layer.
>

>
>
> roBman
>
>
> [1] Where BCP = Binary Carrier Pigeon
>
-- 
Christine

Spime Wrangler

cperey@perey.com
mobile +86 132 6171 6195
VoIP (rings in Beijing) +1 (617) 848-8159
Skype (from anywhere) Christine_Perey
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 07:30:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:26 UTC