W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > June 2017

Re: VR schema proposal - need some help

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:41:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1knrQLSmXYvQ9xFzFjWy8fWdFQJAD6PAwPiuz_=0g3BQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: Aaron Abbott <aaron@persuasivedata.com>, public-mixedreality@w3.org, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Dave Lorenzini <davelorenzini@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
maybe also

playerDevice: "HMD"


mixedRealityCookie: "yes"

(similarTo: <a href="http://www.hooli.xyz/" target="_blank" class="
hidden-link"> )

(being that if a HMD is on a particular URL at a space/time (location
and/or time): the experience changes).

I think the schema attempt was a great start, but certainly more work needs
to be done.

I'm also kinda sure it's not simply X:Y Coordinates, but also elevation and
orientation. whilst dave's more of the expert, i have a feeling the answer
to that problem might be in KML.

also Re: Formats for discovery, interactions and working to identify which
parts are in the web-layer (or which parts could be);

The 'golden' use-case i really care about is the means in which someone can
identify an object but that the object can have ACLs.

EG: Facial / phonetics (vocal) / biometric Recognition of person (direct or
by way of inference); as to enable availability for use for only a
specified purpose; or the means to exclude use from all purposes.

Some people may want privacy, others may subscribe to a dating app with
specific parameters.  I think this should have graph support, and in-turn i
think the work with manu is an important element to achieving that goal.

The classic examples of AR/VR/MR Visions:

- https://vimeo.com/166807261
- https://vimeo.com/8569187

which i hope may help illustrate some of the ontological functions.  I'm
not sure what the standard WebAPIs might look like though?

or what they'd hook into..


On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 at 02:18 Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>

> I am not sure I understand the recommendation to use category instead of a
> new type. VirtualRealityObjects are different than other types of media
> objects, so it is important to understand the distinction. While one can go
> through a VR demo on a normal screen, it is a diminished experience, just
> as one can listen to a movie over audio equipment, but that is not the
> intended playback mechanism.
> - Vicki
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> No need to create a new type, I would say, if you just want to classify
>> your MediaObject or Thing.
>> We have support now for categories.
>> You can just simply use http://schema.org/category when you need to
>> sub-classify a Thing.
>> You are just wanting to specify a particular type of MediaObject, right
>> ?  But that VirtualRealityObject is still a MediaObject, right ?  If so,
>> then just sub-classify with category.
>> You could even get crazy (but I don't recommend it in this case) and do
>> something like Military specs do and give a reduction hierarchy:
>> type: "MediaObject"
>> category: "reality>virtual"
>> category: "Virtual Reality"
>> -Thad
>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2017 16:41:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:35 UTC