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 17:54:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok17AEjbsSyBEMkLvfNXuDW6HV9DtqpT8zXDuaE5i+D3iA@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>
Found the altitude reference:
https://developers.google.com/kml/documentation/altitudemode

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 at 02:41 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> maybe also
>
> playerDevice: "HMD"
>
> or,
>
> 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..
>
> Tim.H
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 at 02:18 Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 17:55:26 UTC

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