- From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:44:33 +1000
- To: Philipp Slusallek <slusallek@cs.uni-saarland.de>
- Cc: public-ar@w3.org, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>, "public-declarative3d@w3.org" <public-declarative3d@w3.org>
Hi Philipp, I think we're on the same page. If something substantive comes out of the group there's nothing precluding it leading to a standards track...but the initial goal is more communication I believe. Personally I think we will soon have all the tools we need for a Web Based AR, if the current standards/APIs mature as it looks like they will. So I'm not proposing anything new...just trying to call out related requirements that will ensure these standards/APIs are useful for us as they develop. This includes declarative 3d too 8) roBman On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 19:36 +0200, Philipp Slusallek wrote: > Hi, > > I think I agree with you. However, the goal of the Community Groups (at > least to the degree that we understand it at the Declarative 3D CG) is > that we are preparing a possible later standardization. Thus starting > the discussion, clarifying what needs standardization, what options are > available, what are relevant use cases (and which are not!), etc. > > Given that we already have two fairly similar implementations of Dec3D > (proposed acronym) within the browser (XML3D & X3DOM), we may be in a > different position, though. > > Best, > > Philipp > > Am 20.08.2011 16:40, schrieb Rob Manson: > > 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. > > > > If this is because of the initial description of the W3C AR Community > > Group then that's really just an artefact of the setup process and I > > think we should refine this to match exactly the points that have been > > raised. > > > > As for an "all encompassing" Web AR standard...or "any standard" coming > > out of the W3C AR Community Group...I don't think this is the goal for > > these Community Groups at all. They are not Working Groups. As far as > > I'm aware they're a new tool for the W3C to encourage broader engagement > > with specific communities of interest. > > > > However, I do think there is a lot of benefit to having a specific W3C > > Community Group focused on AR that can help draw a consistent thread > > through all the other Web Standards that are being defined. From my > > experience each of the Working Groups are very busy and often get caught > > within their own silo of thinking. > > > > Giving AR a clearly defined voice within the W3C and helping it engage > > with the broader community just seems like a good idea to me. I would > > hope that this would be a perfect fit for the Argon project and any > > other similar projects. > > > > roBman > > > > PS: I've only replied to the public-ar@w3.org, public-poi@w3.org and > > discussion@arstandards.org lists...so feel free to cross post your > > replies to other groups if you want. But I really didn't aim to create > > a cross posting storm 8) I was just aiming to encourage engagement from > > some of the related 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 > >> > >> > > > > >
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 11:45:08 UTC