[semantics-public] [now semantics-public] Unable to meet today on X3D semantics; looking ahead

Don Brutzman brutzman at nps.edu
Mon Dec 30 15:48:53 PST 2019

Hi John.

Shifting this general discussion from semantics at web3d.org (member-only meeting scheduling) to semantics-public list.

I was referring to separate geometric ontology work being referred to on the CAD mailing list.  Some interesting references were posted there.

Everything you describe sounds interesting but is far too abstract for me to ponder.  I think we get our best mileage out of focusing on:
- performing X3D scene-graph queries (with a modest start) to produce properties of interest (needs work)
- performing metadata queries (needs work)
- performing multiple-namespace queries with other information (such as separately derived geometric properties) in combination with X3D triples.

At that point we will be peeking up on the plateau of general 3D search.  For upcoming efforts, staying focused on improving X3D queries can best help.

As quoted on the X3D Ontology page:

* "The answer to your question is the response to the query." Jim Hendler and Dean Allemang

... and a converse is true also, if your query can't get a response then maybe the question isn't well formed.  Suggest we stay focused on trying to "ask the right questions" using SPARQL and the X3D Ontology in order to best understand how to effectively apply it.

So, for example, deconstructing "bouncy" might mean writing an X3D SPARQL queries for
- "is there a PositionInterpolator that starts at one SFVec3f position with Y=0, goes up in +Y direction, then returns to Y=0 height."

and moving on to "bouncing" would add something like
- "is there a TimeSensor connecting the PositionInterpolator to a Transform via a set of ROUTEs?" and "is the TimeSensor triggered/active?" etc.

Defining animation queries like these is certainly within the realm of the possible today.  Some would be great diagnostics.

Sticking to practical measurable concepts like these seems quite valuable.  We don't need others agreement to characterize the essentials of what exists in X3D now.  There is a whole set of scene-graph model characteristics we might be able to figure out answerable queries like
- what shapes share the same color?
- what shapes are transparent?
- what shapes are invisible due to scene-graph structure (hidden by Switch, follow-on child in ProtoBody, within LOD etc.)
- what functional animation chains are present (optional trigger, TimeSensor, Interpolator/Sequencer, target node, connecting ROUTEs throughout)
- what nonfunctional animation chains are present (i.e. Interpolator/Sequencer without the above)?
- what functional/nonfunctional animation chains use a Script or ProtoInstance instead?
- does metadata exist? do metadata nodes have references?
- what shapes are red (green, blue, a certain color)
- do any geometry nodes share the same coordinates?
- are there any textures? any transformed textures?
- are there any Viewpoint nodes?  Inline nodes? etc.
- are there any (possibly insecure) url values with http vice https?
- are there any url values with possibly insecure/blacklisted addresses?
- are there any nodes present with missing (or perhaps only default) values?
etc. etc.

So, lots of practical inquiry lies ahead.  Have fun with X3D semantics!  8)

On 12/30/2019 9:46 AM, John Carlson wrote:
> Previously we said we are working on: "Reasoning and Inference inquiries include Structural, Conceptual, Functional and additional aspects of 3D models." May I suggest that Conceptual, which previously meant Spatial among other things, be moved up, and Symbolic or Sign (Semiotic might be okay) aspect be added below and a new Spatiotemporal aspect be added below. Conceptual will be above the other 4 aspects, and together, they all will be called "conceptual aspects." We can also think about adding metadata/querying for emotions by concept for various sound files, if not already present.
> That said, people have different ideas of space.  My wife wouldn't even describe space to me.  Perhaps we should ask people to describe "space" before adding that aspect. I do know that people have very different ideas of time, but that X3D has very specific ideas.  Perhaps we should allow people to query space-time in their own ways, and provide a smorgasbord like approach?
> I'm kind of fudging here, because the general theory of relativity has not been combined with the special theory of relativity.
> I would encourage us to develop more concepts that are animation/emotion/spatiotemporal based, like "bouncy."
> I'm not sure what the term functional means in this context (structural is to formal, as ??? is to functional).  I like behavioral or change. I think we should harken back to our mathematical roots for this one, and speak of relative position, velocity and acceleration: "Which car is the fastest going around checkpoint 5?" might be a query.
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:08 AM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com <mailto:yottzumm at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Well, I've been doing a bit of mathematical anthropology, looking at maps of mathematics. I would encourage us to look at these, and think about providing high-level microtheories based on these maps.
>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ-4B-mS-Y (there are static versions as well)
>     Classifying geometry with topology may be interesting for search purposes.  How else might we use topology? https://images.app.goo.gl/8S8rjXvoHcAXVDAU7
>     There are also maps of science, philosophy and physics which are likely too broad to cover just in one paper.
>     But coming down to mathematics, it appears that there are 4 main subject areas from pure mathematics in our ontologies found in the map of mathematics: structure, change, space, and symbol (numbers). I believe these should be top-level ontological objects, as follows  Structure for Geometry, Symbol for visual symbols, Change for Scripts, Routes, Animation and Interpolation, Space for manipulations with transforms.
>     Specifically, for structural output graphics, I would say there are 3 types of "topologies," namely, hypermovie, hypertext, hypershape and the parent hypermedia (we can have hypermovies of hypermovies, hyperdocuments and hypershapes, etc.)  I studied these 3 basic media types under PostScript first, using X/NeWS and printers.   We should also consider media like hypertactile, hypersmell, hypertaste, beyond hypersight and hyperhearing (hyperemotion anyone?).
>     Next I would like to study structural entropy.  How might structure&change like particle systems and classical physics be ontologized?  How might we explore levels of entropy?  There's perfect order, or pure mathematics, stochastic/chance/probabilistic order, chaotic order, and quantum order  (someone can put in forms of disorder if they like). How might we ontologize mixtures of order and chance?   Can we map "hurricane" or "earthquake" to graphics easily?
>     Frankly, I am not ready to crack open "Maps of Meaning" yet.
>     John
>     On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 9:21 AM Brutzman, Donald (Don) (CIV) <brutzman at nps.edu <mailto:brutzman at nps.edu>> wrote:
>         Am traveling today, unable to join.  Next week should be OK.
>         TODO items:
>         - Add Jakub’s queries in IC3D paper to X3D Ontology suite
>         - Add paper to archive
>         - Post tweet if any photos might be available
>         Reviewing the recent documents on feasibility study of ontology for geometry and topology is really interesting and encouraging.  We have a lot of great things to do!
>         For our next meeting, let’s discuss what we want to do for Web3D 2020 in Seoul 24-26 JUN for greatest influence.  Paper, tutorial?
>         https://www.web3d.org/event/web3d-2020-conference-seoul-korea
>         Thanks for a tremendous 2019, looking forward to a productive and Happy New Year together.  🧨💥😎👍
>         v/r Don
>         Sent from my handheld device
>         -- 
>         semantics mailing list
>         semantics at web3d.org <mailto:semantics at web3d.org>
>         http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/semantics_web3d.org

all the best, Don
Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br       brutzman at nps.edu
Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA   +1.831.656.2149
X3D graphics, virtual worlds, navy robotics http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman

More information about the semantics-public mailing list