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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:54:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CADVvL4n5fs=OWoatEK8+f5vJuBW3VUdBTFb2A-5tToo=gKV8Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Blair MacIntyre <blair@cc.gatech.edu>
Cc: roBman@mob-labs.com, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, "public-declarative3d@w3.org" <public-declarative3d@w3.org>, public-ar@w3.org, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
brain slip there, I meant to say "couldn't"
Reviews of anything, by anyone;
Please try out my new site and give feedback :)

On 22 August 2011 16:20, Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to most of this too.
> To be honest though, I think while there could (and probably cant) be
> a standard for overall AR, I think we could end up with a standard for
> geolocation information that is suitable for AR. (likely via W3C POI).
> Much like we have had native email clients at first, and webmail
> slowly catching up to the same features....all the while both
> supporting the same protocol, I think the same could happen with AR.
> The interfaces, the code base, the platforms, the interfaces...all can
> be vastly different, but the basic "position this object here"
> information standard could (and imho should) be the same.
> -
> Regarding fragmentation, I dont think theres harm in different groups
> for specific goals....as long as work isnt duplicated between them.
> On 22 August 2011 15:24, Blair MacIntyre <blair@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> I'll strongly +1 this, too.
>> As an example, our reason for developing Argon is that we can't do what we need in a mobile AR browser yet;  but, our long term goal (since we are building on WebKit with custom javascript APIs) would be to have as much as possible of what we are doing folded into something like Webkit.  Now, there are also things we will do in Argon that won't be possible in a browser (given the current browser models), but even those will (hopefully) eventually make it into standard browsers.
>> I think it's important to contextualize AR as "just one way of displaying information" that an app or website may want to leverage;  there shouldn't be "AR apps".  This can only happen when it's possible to create AR views and modes easily using the platforms and tools that are used for the other parts of the applications.
>> Just as there are web-based applications, and native applications, so will there be AR modes for both of those architecture choices.
>> On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
>>> A strong +1 to getting to the point where people can just focus on D
>>> I am also a big fan of the Web Based AR running "within" a browser.
>>> This doesn't stop native apps benefiting from the standards like that
>>> from the POI WG and DEC3D...but to me it's the "within" a browser that's
>>> most interesting.  Especially from a distribution/market size point of
>>> view.
>>> That's what I'd like to see the ARCG focus on.
>>> The rest of the standards discussions seem to clearly belong in a cross
>>> SDO group like ARStandards.org.
>>> roBman
>>> On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 21:01 +0200, Philipp Slusallek wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I might have a very naive view of AR here but to me it consists of four
>>>> main pieces:
>>>> -- (A) Input: Obtaining information about the real world and the user,
>>>> via special devices (position, orientation, movement, audio, video, ...)
>>>> and AR specific processing such as computer vision and others. This
>>>> could be the main area covered by the AR-CG.
>>>> -- (B) Descriptions of links between real and virtual worlds (POI-WG, I
>>>> believe)
>>>> -- (C) Output: Representing a 3D environment (made up of data from the
>>>> virtual and real world) including the interaction descriptions attached
>>>> to the objects and the scene as such. This is what we are targeting in
>>>> the Dec3D CG.
>>>> -- (D) Application: Program logic that takes the input from (A),
>>>> retrieves appropriate virtual data (B), adds some application specific
>>>> data and logic, and displays it with suitable user interactions using
>>>> (C). If (A-C) are doing a good job, a simple AR application can be
>>>> almost trivial.
>>>> Of course, you can make the application logic arbitrarily complex, but
>>>> this should (ideally!) have little to do with (A-C). My point is that in
>>>> the two CGs and the POI-WG we should target to make (A-C) as easy to use
>>>> and as comprehensive as possible (in an incremental way, starting with
>>>> the basic stuff), so that people that want to use AR can focus on (D).
>>>> I am a big fan of creating building blocks and this may be a really nice
>>>> split into separate domains of concern and would clearly outline  areas
>>>> of collaboration between the groups.
>>>> While I can see many AR implementations (Web and non-Web-based), I would
>>>> still argue for the Web browser as our main target for a very simple
>>>> reason: Its an open platform on which we can easily combine our forces
>>>> to make the best and fastest progress. In particular, it has a huge user
>>>> base already and a highly capable runtime environment (it certainly not
>>>> perfect, but should easily cover at least 80% if not more of all use
>>>> cases). With Mozilla and maybe also Google now being interested in Dec3D
>>>> and WebCL getting quite some attention, we seem to be making progress in
>>>> getting the necessary capabilities into the browsers as well.
>>>> Separate non-Web AR browsers would have to replicate some of the same
>>>> runtime capabilities (including JS, Ajax, WebSockets, Worker Threads,
>>>> etc.). I am sure there are people that can do a much better job than our
>>>> current browsers, but I am not sure that the market is there (except in
>>>> niches) to support this next to a quickly moving and broad browser-based
>>>> AR community into which many of the millions of Web developers can
>>>> easily integrate.
>>>> The money should be made with the apps and not with the infrastructure.
>>>> Best,
>>>>      Philipp
>>>> Am 20.08.2011 18:10, schrieb Thomas Wrobel:
>>>>> 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
>>>>> guess.
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> -Thomas
>>>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 14:54:47 UTC

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