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

Re: WG Objectives - A Personal Take

From: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:24:29 -0400
Cc: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>, public-poiwg W3C <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6FA36A54-6529-4358-AA53-BC60A595FB6F@w3.org>
To: ȫ <hollobit@etri.re.kr>
Hi Jonathan, Carl, et al,


I attempted to address some of this on the conference call this week and previously on this list.  What we have in AR is a driver for a POI standard.  This standard has obvious applications outside of AR.  We all also are aware (as identified at the AR workshop) of other areas where Web standards are lacking for AR.  This WG will address both of these needs.  The charter has the 'core' POI Recommendation as one deliverable and an AR specific vocabulary as another.  We also have a third deliverable where we'll begin to address the key areas where Web standards may be lacking, could be improved or need to be created.  (FYI, there's also a possible fourth note that's under "Other Deliverables" that is a landscape survey of AR tech.)

As Jonathan says, we've both got a narrow scope (core POI) and a broad scope (AR and Web standards).  We will probably trip over trying to tease these two things apart for a while.  I mentioned on the call we could have a separate AR task force, or another call with AR focus, etc.  I think it's way too early to worry too much about this, we're just getting our feet under us.  We all need to understand the goals, and that not everyone in the group will have the same level of interest in each of the goals, so we'll all need a little patience.  POI and AR are both broad topics, and we've managed to collect a pretty diverse set of participants to address them, I'll go so far as to say we've got exactly the right set of participants.  I'm fully confident that given some time we'll figure out the right way to balance all of our needs.


On Oct 28, 2010, at 8:51 PM, ȫ wrote:

> Hi Carl,
> Thank you for your comments. 
> I know exactly what is  the deliverables of POI WG in current phase. 
> But I'd like to talk to you what would be WG's goal. 
> As you can see the POI WG charter,  
> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/charter/ 
> "The mission of the POI WG, part of the Ubiquitous Web Applications Activity, 
> is to develop technical specifications for the representation of "Points of Interest" information 
> on the Web." 
> .... 
> "This group will primarily focus on POI use within AR applications 
> but will strive to ensure reusability across applications." 
> I think there are two key point : 
> 1) our job is part of the UWA Activity 
> 2) develop technical spec. for the representation of POI INFORMATION ON THE WEB
> I remember when we are starting to set up this WG, 
> We were talked about "start do something precise and simple".
> http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-w3car-minutes.html#item09 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/06/w3car/report.html 
> For that reason, we are starting to focus on the POI scope. 
> But still, I think the long term of WG's goal is 
> to develop technical specification for AR on Web. 
> So now, in first stage, we are trying to develop the specification for 
> the representation of POI INFORMATION ON THE WEB. 
> Therefore, we need to try both scope : narrow scope and broad scope. 
> I think POI is a key element of AR on the Web, but it is not all of AR on the Web. 
> Best Regards, 
> --- Jonathan Jeon 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Reed [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org] 
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:45 AM
> To: ȫ; member-poiwg@w3.org
> Cc: public-poiwg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WG Objectives - A Personal Take
> Jonathan
> Your email reminds me of a statement I wanted to make a week or so ago: 
> Perhaps the first task of this group is to define what we mean by a Point of 
> Interest.
> AR provides a set of use cases. There are other use domains, such as 
> navigation and gazetteer, that also provide use cases. Further, use domains 
> such as navigation and GeoINT have been using POIs for decades and we have 
> much to learn and leverage from those communities.
> AR should not be the only use case. Further, I think we need to be very 
> careful not to have such a broad set of objectives, such as "a framework for 
> AR on the web" that we cannot actually define a model and vocabulary for 
> POI!
> We also need to be cognizant of the POI related work done in other standards 
> communities, such as OMA, the IETF, ISO, the OGC, and so forth. This 
> coordination aspect of the POI work also suggests to me the need for 
> restriction of scope and not extension of scope. If I remember, Gary also 
> suggested a relatively narrow scope of work to insure definition of a 
> recommendation that has broad implementation appeal.
> Regards
> Carl Reed, PhD
> The OGC: Making Location Count.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "ȫ" <hollobit@etri.re.kr>
> To: <member-poiwg@w3.org>
> Cc: <public-poiwg@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:06 AM
> Subject: RE: WG Objectives - A Personal Take
> Hi everyone,
> As I was presented on my position paper[1] from AR on the Web workshop,
> I'd like to develop the basic standards for AR interoperability using Web 
> Technology.
> As you know well, Interoperability issue is one of major challenges faced by 
> the small
> but fast-growing industry of Augmented Reality. Currently, many people 
> cannot share the
> augmented information between different AR browsers and AR service 
> environment.
> I think the Scope of POI WG may not limited on just the POI related issues.
> I think we need to deal with various issues for interoperable AR services 
> and AR on the Web,
> in initial stage of WG.
> In this POI WG, my major question is starting from
> "Does AR services must need a Dedicated AR browser ?",
> "Is it impossible to use General Web User Agent(web browser) for AR browsing 
> ?".
> Here's my questions what I'd like to try to find answer from POI WG:
> 1) How can we make a framework for AR on the Web
> 2) How can we make a representation model for Augmented Data (like as POI)
> 3) Just PoI(Point of Interest) ? Do we need to extend from PoI to 
> CoI(Context of Interest) ?
> 4) Do we need a scheme for identification of physical object/POI ?
> 5) What we consider from other W3C activities and how to cooperate with 
> them.
> 6) How can we make the OneWeb and AR services on the OneWeb  ?
> 7) What we need to develop ...
> Best Regards,
> --- Jonathan Jeon
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/w3car/generic_framework.pdf
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 01:24:39 UTC

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