Re: ISSUE-46: Can we add attributes to link to support orientation, location, etc?

I understand your concern, but check out the charter [1] which to me clearly states that AR work should occur in this working group, but is separate from the core POI Recommendation. 

I've been operating under the assumption that an AR extension to the core is also part of the mandate of this working group, and should start right about now that we've got 90% of the core done. Building the AR extension before the core is final allows AR to influence the core.

I defer to the chairs on process, but it would seem that teleconferences could begin to take on a heavy AR flavor if the core work is done.

Some other extensions we could consider are navigation and entertainment.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/charter/

---
Raj
The OGC: Making location count...
http://www.opengeospatial.org/contact


On Jul 26, at 9:38 PM, Rob Manson wrote:

> Following up from a few points I raised in the conference call last
> week, I'm really concerned how the current model in the PWD doesn't meet
> the core needs of AR.
> 
> This is not a criticism of the work that Matt and Raj have done.  It's
> just a real concern I have.  I know Raj mentioned that this may be
> treated through an "AR profile", but I'm not sure how or if that is
> proceeding.
> 
> So the wording in the subject above isn't really strong enough and
> doesn't capture the crux of the point I was raising.
> 
> At the moment there is no way to link other digital content like images
> and 3d models to a POI in the current PWD.  Without this there is no AR
> use for this standard 8(
> 
>> From my perspective I'd rather see a stripped down data model that
> simply has a point based on fixed lat/lon or relative lat/lon and then
> almost all else able to be linked externally.  And optionally the linked
> data could then be pre-gathered and delivered inline along the lines of
> cid: links in MIME based email messages.  But this last point is really
> just a serialisation discussion.
> 
> To me, a lot of the other mapping focused points around "near",
> "category" and "other geometry" discussions are distracting, open ended
> rabbit holes that are consuming a lot of discussion time with little
> resolution...while some critical hard requirements have been completely
> omitted.
> 
> If there's a process for working on the "AR profile" then please let me
> know what it is and I'll happily take on that task.  Otherwise, I really
> have to push hard for simplifying the model and adding a more AR related
> focus back in.
> 
> roBman
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 12:45:01 UTC