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

Re: POI based Open AR proposal

From: Hermodsson, Klas <Klas.Hermodsson@sonyericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:14:54 +0200
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
CC: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>, "roBman@mob-labs.com" <roBman@mob-labs.com>, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1E21E4BE-21CF-48EE-ABEB-0780A8D632C1@sonyericsson.com>

On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:30 , Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> Two quick remarks:
> - See LoST (RFC 5222) for an example of a global distributed infrastructure for mapping. Such infrastructure is probably well beyond the scope of the W3C.

Thank you, I will have a look at that. I just threw a very fast glance at it, is it correct in understanding that a likely scenario is to have a well known server to query and which may serve links and services relevant to a certain geographic area? As an example, would that mean that if you are in downtown Tokyo all stores, services, and all other info needs to register themselves to one server/service in order for the user to know where to query?

> - The challenge is to find the minimal set of things that *must* be standardized, not the superset of all the things that *could* be standardized. We presumably don't want to re-invent ontologies, general query languages or scripting languages. I doubt that we'll succeed if we worry about representing "return all the descriptions that are in this polygon, are owned by the National Park Service, have been recommended by the Lonely Planet, are on my Facebook friend-list must-see list, with descriptions suitable for minors and don't charge more than $5 for access", to include just a few possible dimensions. For some of these, normal XML XPath and ontology cousins will likely be needed, for others, you will have to write a program that accesses APIs that are either standardized by the W3C or, as likely, semi-proprietary.
> Thus, I think it would be helpful, in my view, to pare down, rather than try to re-invent the whole web.

I completely understand the conservative point of view on scope for standardization activities. Yet I would think that a discussion on how these may be used in the coming years is a good discussion to have. I believe that the AR/POI WG will both work with a small standardization scope as well as a general discussion on a wider AR scope. Not sure how these two different horizons will be handled, does W3C keep more than one mailing list per WG?


> Henning
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:20 AM, Hermodsson, Klas wrote:
>> This may be a bit off topic but I think it is crucial that we lift our eyes a bit beyond the current AR browsers such as Layar, Wikitude etc. Channels (or opt-in streams that I like to call them) is the current style of many AR browsers. I have in my positional paper [1] for the W3C AR Barcelona workshop made the point that useful AR browsing requires relevance. This relevance requires "a lot of content" and to then apply filtering where a very important part of the filtering is to apply the user context. This "a lot of content" and filtering will require a different setup from the current request-response scheme of today's web. Similar to how google search engine ranks results off client infrastructure must most likely prepare this ranking. At the same time the aggregation and filtering should not be single server work or we will end up single point of failure and a structure which breaks the organic and independent distribution infrastructure that makes the current web so valuable.
>> So in summary, I wish we would stop talking about channels as the major AR browsing method for the AR. Of course we need to cover the current ways in order for the standard to be relevant but let's ensure the standard can grow and in a good direction.
Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 07:15:49 UTC

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