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

Re: VR schema proposal - need some help

From: Aaron Abbott <aaron@persuasivedata.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:55:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPXba-GRP9cygAV7jVhw+Rq+z_BwKDWsWRcYwjN_Bx7kyZ8+3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.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>
Thank you for the feedback everyone! I am going to share you points with my
client and will get their feedback for us to consider.

Thad, I get what you are saying, but do agree with Vicki. I was thinking of
doing what you are saying, but as Vicki states, the distinction from other
MediaObjects is a need here. That's what led me to find you guys. There are
tons of properties that can be shared between the different types of
MediaObjects, however, there will be scenarios where an AudioObject or
VideoObjects will be nested within the VirtualRealityObject. Would your
approach facilitate this?

Here's another example. Their camera takes hundreds of pictures to create
their 3D VR scenes. In these scenes, they do give access to individual
image frames. So this could be an example of nesting an ImageObject within
the VirtualRealityObject. Thoughts?

Thanks again.

Aaron Abbott

inbound marketing consultant | marketing technologist | digital media
website:     https://persuasivedata.com
let's connect:     www.linkedin.com/in/aaronabbott
*We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams...*

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@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 Monday, 19 June 2017 13:55:39 UTC

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