- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:54:40 +0000
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok17AEjbsSyBEMkLvfNXuDW6HV9DtqpT8zXDuaE5i+D3iA@mail.gmail.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