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

Hi Raj,

I believe that the charter of the POI WG should be and is a legal and 
administrative guide, however, those who were involved in the process of 
its development approximately 12 months ago might feel, as I do, that it 
was an awkward compromise and not what one might consider a "perfect" 
charter. I don't know that there is such a thing.

To Rob's point in the thread on Issue 44, the world will be best served 
if the core draft focuses on the simplest and most elegant definition of 
a POI.

It would be very valuable to begin (resume) work on the AR "fitness" of 
this work. As you suggest, there must be a W3C process for this and, 
provided that Matt and/or the chairs agree with your recommendations, 
they will share with us precisely how this is achieved.

Perhaps we would also attract others who have been silent to get 
involved and contribute to that as well. However, please note that it is 
high holiday season (in academia and in Europe) for another month so 
whatever happens in the next 30 days is likely to be only by the 
skeleton crew.

I suggest that, in addition to there being a focus on AR in the 
conference calls, we also make an effort to have AR 
deployers/implementers well represented during the upcoming Face-to-Face 
meeting in Boulder September 19-21.

I would like to promote that meeting as well as to push some invitations 
for contributions to the public mailing list to the AR Standards 
Community announcement mailing list. If I understood correctly, the 
Face-to-Face can only include W3C members and Invited Experts, but even 
in the members group many are working on AR.

Regards,

Christine

Spime Wrangler

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


On 7/27/11 2:43 PM, Raj Singh wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>