W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poiwg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [AR Standards Discussion] Getting started with the W3C AR Community Group

From: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:10:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CADVvL4np=-pwN_U2cBk=YvhRZS4o8-cmaC--LnFC6kwgh1XaLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: roBman@mob-labs.com
Cc: public-ar@w3.org, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
On 20 August 2011 16:40, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure where the discussion around defining a specific
> implementation comes from.  Personally, I've never proposed that in any
> way and the points both Blair and Thomas make about this seem logical
> and obvious to me so +1 to that.

Well, there could be varying ways to do a in-website AR browser, but
thats still just one possible way to make a AR browser.
Thus if the group was to focus on " Web Standards based model" that is
at the very least a sub-set of possible implementations.

eg. If the web model proposes using WebGL, that makes sense for
javascript based browsers designed to run on webpages.

However, standalone ar browsers (or hybrid browsers) would have no
need of that. They could use DirectX, OpenGL/ES, or any other 3D
solution they wish. Dictating they have to use the "web standard" to
render their 3d wouldn't serve any benefit as all are capable of
producing the same visual result - which is really all that matters.

Thats what I meant by that definition focusing on a specific
implementation. I should have really said type of implementation I

Note; I'm not saying theres anything wrong with defining a specific
implementation either. At least defining what technologies can be used
to make it possible and easy is a must.
The AR field and task is so big subdivision seems sensible to me. So I
think each groups goals should be precisely defined.

Theres at the very least in my view a few overall separate tasks;

a) Defining the data standard to store AR data. (that is, the physical
links between real and virtual data, as well as a few
standard/recommended formats for this data to be in).

b) For web based AR browsers there needs to be a look at precisely
what existing things can be used, seeing if they are suitable as they
are or need extensions, and if necessary defining new things.

c) Overall promotion and branding of AR, as you say, engage in the
larger community.  Theres also issues regarding Patents that could
effect AR quite negatively in the future. (Apple recently successfully
patenting ARs use on transparent displays, for example, could cause
problems for HMDs)

Those are very rough and of the top of my head.
There might be more, or different divisions. But really I am just
urging precise definition and separation of the tasks that need to be
done in different groups.


> On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 08:43 -0400, Blair MacIntyre wrote:
>> I'd agree with Thomas here;  we clearly don't need yet another group
>> of people trying to solve the whole problem.
>> As an example:  I obviously have an interest in the web spec, since
>> that's what we've been implicitly create as part of our Argon work;  I
>> would agree that the implementation is a completely separate issue, as
>> it's quite easy to imagine very different implementations of a browser
>> that render our channels.
>> BTW, I also think that there should NOT be an all-encompassing
>> standard;  building on other W3C standards where ever possible should
>> be a goal, I'd think.  For example, 3d data formats are separate, and
>> there is no need (at this point) to have a standard.  X3D has not
>> gained traction, and there may be other approaches that are lighter
>> and may be more suitable for a "baseline".  Similarly, 2D content
>> could be adequately handled by HTML5.  There are already working
>> efforts for video access, native code and local device access, and
>> other issues relevant to AR.
>> The real question, thus, is WHAT is AR-specific?  That's what the
>> group should focus on.
>> On Aug 20, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>> > Id just point out, if you are focusing on Web-based AR, that thats an
>> > AR browser implementation solution - so you shouldn't also cover the
>> > standard for the data itself, as they are two very different things*.
>> >
>> > (Just as HTML specification specifies how html code should be
>> > displayed - it doesn't say what languages and technology's the browser
>> > should use to do that. Browsers can thus be coded in many languages,
>> > and use all sorts of techniques to display the same results. AR
>> > browsers should be the exact same).
>> >
>> > The discussion of the data standard and code to display that standard
>> > are thus two separate discussions, and the goal should be quite
>> > explicit on which it aims to do.
>> >
>> > [/2 cents]
>> >
>> > -Thomas
>> >
>> > * with the possibly exception of the 3D format, as web-based tech
>> > would limit that to certain types, while non web based browsers could
>> > support anything. Thus the non-ones should conform to the web standard
>> > 3D anyway. (which I think was more heavily towards being X3D - which
>> > as long as it serialises nicely I see no downside to using in any
>> > scenario). In either case, this would be a job for the data-standard to only
>> > choose formats both lisence free and suitable for web use.
>> >
>> > On 20 August 2011 04:43, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> the W3C AR Community Group has been established and is now open for
>> >> people to join.  Great work on proposing the group Ya Knygar.
>> >>
>> >> Now I think it would be good to make some clear plans about what the
>> >> goals of the group are and what the scope of our activities are.
>> >>
>> >> From my perspective this would simply be:
>> >>
>> >>        "The development of a Web Standards based model
>> >>        for Augmented Reality"
>> >>
>> >> If you have a proposal for an alternate goal/scope then please submit it
>> >> and we can run a poll to select what the group runs with.
>> >>
>> >> Also, I don't think this group is going to work if we just automatically
>> >> make everyone who joins a co-chair 8)  At the moment everyone who has
>> >> signed up has been made chair.  I'd rather see us first establish the
>> >> goals for the group, then run a poll to decide how the group will be
>> >> managed and who the chair/s are.  We don't need to be too formal...but a
>> >> little structure would be good I think.
>> >>
>> >> We will also need to clearly define how this groups is different from
>> >> the existing AR related groups that have formed already.  I think the
>> >> goal I've proposed above does that (e.g. focus solely on Web Based
>> >> AR) ...but more discussion is obviously required.
>> >>
>> >> So, please join the group and get involved in this important discussion.
>> >>
>> >>        http://www.w3.org/community/ar/
>> >>
>> >> There's a lot happening and a lot of APIs that will directly impact the
>> >> future of a Web Based AR are being defined right now. So now is the
>> >> perfect time to get this up and running.
>> >>
>> >> roBman
>> >>
>> >> PS: I've cc'd all the related groups I'm involved in to encourage anyone
>> >> with a stake in related technologies and APIs to join this group.
>> >>
>> >> PPS: I've also cc'd in the W3C Community people as I think this
>> >> discussion is as much about Community Group process as it is about the
>> >> content of our group.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Discussion mailing list
>> >> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> >> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discussion mailing list
>> > Discussion@arstandards.org
>> > http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@arstandards.org
> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Received on Saturday, 20 August 2011 16:10:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:30 UTC