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

Re: WG Objectives - A Personal Take

From: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:20:01 -0600
Message-ID: <CA4305A27F5B4EBD86DFBA84F8991A92@CarlandSusieOf>
To: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, <member-poiwg@w3.org>
Cc: <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Jonathan -


I noticed the use of the word "Ubiquitous". I was wondering if this group is 
familiar with the standards work related to u-Position? From the in progress 
ISO document [ISO 19151]:

Geographic information – Logical location identification scheme. This 
Standard proposes a logical position identification scheme, u-Position to be 
used for referencing spatial information in any distributed environments 
without physical position data such as coordinates. This Standard specifies 
a u-Position naming scheme and interfaces for operations to handle 
u-Positions. The definition of position is: data type that describes a point 
or geometry potentially occupied by an object or person [ISO 19133]. A 
u-Position is the logical and seamless spatial reference in the form of a 
label or a code that identifies a location. A u-Position URI is a u-Position 
in the form of a URI that identifies a location.

This standards work initially came from the Korean community as part of the 
u-City initiative.

What is interesting in this work is that there is a recognition that a 
position can be static and/or dynamic and that the spatial frame of 
reference can change based on where the position (and related POI) is 
located. Think about an objects position starting on a road then entering a 
building and then boarding a ship. Karl's examples in his email today hinted 
at these different spatial frames of reference.

A last comment on the u-Position work is that it has been harmonized with 
ISO 19107, spatial schema, which defines the geometry model used in GML, 
GeoRSS, CityGML, OGC Simple Features, GeoJSON, and so forth.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "전종홍" <hollobit@etri.re.kr>
To: "Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>; <member-poiwg@w3.org>
Cc: <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: WG Objectives - A Personal Take

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,
"The mission of the POI WG, part of the Ubiquitous Web Applications 
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 

I remember when we are starting to set up this WG,
We were talked about "start do something precise and simple".

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: 전종홍; member-poiwg@w3.org
Cc: public-poiwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WG Objectives - A Personal Take


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

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

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.


Carl Reed, PhD

The OGC: Making Location Count.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "전종홍" <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

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

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
 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 16:05:33 UTC

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