W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [AR Standards Discussion] Getting started with the W3C AR Community Group

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:24:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4E525884.8080903@perey.com>
To: Blair MacIntyre <blair@cc.gatech.edu>
CC: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>, "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, hhalpin@w3.org, public-ar@w3.org, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, ij@w3.org
Thanks to Rob for his post a few minutes ago suggesting that W3C AR 
Community Group focus (exclusively?) on "within browser" [Philipp's (D) 
in the memo [1]].

I had started this reply (below) so I still want/feel the need to send 
it (for the record).

On 8/20/11 2:43 PM, 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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

The real question, thus, is WHAT is AR-specific?  That's what the group should focus on.

I agree 100% with Blair's clear statements. And with the one most 
important question.

I'm probably not the only one to agree :-)

With respect to the first statement, I would like to add that I am very 
concerned about fragmentation. Already some (many?) groups are suffering 
from lack of participation. Each organization must have a clear agenda 
and purpose. Otherwise it will not reach critical mass and its work will 
lack relevancy.

During the first virtual meeting of the AR Standards Community in early 
July [2], I took the action item to develop an elevator pitch 
approaching a mission statement for the community.

I have been working on this (it is long) and will post separately only 
on the AR Standards Community discussion mailing list. If you are 
interested in reading/learning and contributing to the development of 
that mission, please monitor and participate in the Discussion mailing 
list [3].

With respect to Blair's second statement, this goes even more widely 
than "just W3C". There cannot be (and we should not hint that there ever 
will be) a "universal" (all encompassing) standard for AR.

As for the question (what is AR-specific?), people need to speak up in 
response to Rob's proposal. Setting the example, I say +1.

In addition or alternatively, if you have a different opinion, please 
state it for others to consider.

Christine

Spime Wrangler

cperey@perey.com
mobile +41 79 436 6869
VoIP +1 (617) 848-8159
Skype Christine_Perey

[1] http://arstandards.org/pipermail/discussion/2011-August/000274.html
[2] 
http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/virtual-community-meetings/#July19Agenda
[3] http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion


On 8/20/11 2:43 PM, 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
>
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 13:24:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:25 UTC