[X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C

Tue Jan 4 22:03:10 PST 2011

Hi,

Am 04.01.2011 22:24, schrieb Len Bullard:
> 3. The transparency of the process helps but ultimately companies that can
> afford the programming decide what is in the next version of a platform.
> The interests represented in the conversation outside your self, Joe, etc.
> are Apple and Intel funded.  While no part of the discussion has been
> predatory in that regard, these are the interests at hand willing to fund
> the work.

Let me just clarify this for the sake of transparency and to prevent any
confusion (or even rumors that XML3D might be some corporate submarine
project or anything like this).

The key ideas and all the main initial design work of XML3D has been
done in my university research group completely independent of any
company. It purely arose from conversations with Johannes Behr (X3DOM)
and my disagreement about his strongly X3D-based approach and the wish
to base things more squarely on existing Web technology (and willingness
to give up backward compatibility).

This happened to be in parallel but completely independently to our
discussions with Intel about the setup of the Intel VCI. Once that was
set up, our key Intel partners liked what we have done and approved
funding of XML3D related projects within the Intel VCI. We are very
happy to work with them on this topic and XML3D and the 3D-Internet has
quickly become a central theme within the institute. BTW, almost all
XML3D related work -- and much of the other as well -- is fully open source.

Your suggestion that our XML3D technology might be pushed by demands
from within Intel or other sponsors, is completely off the map (if it
were, it would greatly simplify my life!). It is -- unfortunately with
such big companies -- often much more of the reverse process :-). But
its a great collaboration, no matter what.

The Intel Visual Computing Institute, BTW, is a central research
facility of Saarland university (and legally part of it) with the two
(only) German Max-Planck-Institutes in CS and the DFKI as signing and
core partners. By the design and the structure of the Intel VCI there is
very close collaboration between the research projects at the Intel VCI
and all the many great researchers at the partner institutes.

The Intel VCI is an open and collaborative research facility, meaning we
are fully open to also welcome other industry partners within a specific
project or for the institute as a whole. Intel is providing most of the
external industry funding at this point, which is why they are in the
name as well :-). So, we are independent but happy to work with Intel
and many other partners.

In addition, at the DFKI we are doing most of the application oriented
work of XML3D, focusing on technology transfer, collaborative projects
with all sort of different (many non-IT) industry partners, large EU
projects, and others.

Unfortunately, our research is not funded by Apple yet :-).

	Philipp

> 
> len
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GLG [mailto:info at 3dnetproductions.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 2:54 PM
> To: 'Philipp Slusallek'
> Cc: 'Len Bullard'; x3d-public at web3d.org
> Subject: RE: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
> HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C
> 
> 
> 
>> Lauren, can you please take over at this point :-).
> 
> :) I am glad to be of assistance. I owe you at least that
> much.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lauren
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>> saarland.de]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 2:26 PM
>> To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>> Cc: 'Len Bullard'; x3d-public at web3d.org
>> Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>> HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>> W3C
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I could not have said it better. That is exactly where I
>> hope we will be
>> going.
>>
>> Lauren, can you please take over at this point :-).
>>
>> 	Philipp
>>
>> Am 04.01.2011 17:44, schrieb GLG:
>>>> The bet this time is direct browser rendering
>>>> ensures that the
>>>> engines required (debate plugins but demonstrably, they
>>>> work) can be more
>>>> universal (standard) and less maintenance prone
>> therefore
>>>> will be used by
>>>> the class of users who can use them:  app builders.  Not
>>>> Joe Homepage.  He
>>>> uses what app builders build.
>>>>
>>>> The history of 3D on the web is those apps don't get
>> built.
>>>> Here is a
>>>> failure of imagination.  XTraNormal took a similar
>>>> environment, added
>>>> reasonable text to voice, used a gestural library, a
>> drag
>>>> and drop and
>>>> created a pop phenomenon, thus, winning on the street.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, 3D is in web standards hell.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a lot of truth to that. And meanwhile, 3D worlds
>>> and games that do not care about standards are sailing
>>> along, "winning on the street" as you say. Largely
>> because
>>> end-users do not care about that sort of things. Builders
>>> do. So in the end, it is the quality of the content that
>>> wins on the street, not the standards. IOW, standards can
>>> benefit builders but not really content consumers, unless
>> of
>>> course those consumers happen to be builders as in SL
>> (not
>>> that SL abides to any standard that I know of. Any take
>> on
>>> this?)
>>>
>>> Anyway, it's easy to agree on the above, but, ultimately,
>> if
>>> you can facilitate content delivery to the consumer that
>>> always helps. With OT, what I find is, I first need to
>> sell
>>> the plugin (download) before I can sell the content; as
>> in,
>>> I need to sell the packaging before the product. Compound
>>> that with the technicalities of installation, and the
>> magic
>>> is gone, I loose the immersion, the dropout rate is too
>> high
>>> and that's wasted; I need to compete at the 2D level and
>>> then some, before my 3D content can even stand a chance
>> to
>>> sell itself. That's harder. But, if on the other hand my
>> 3D
>>> content could be immediately exposed that becomes a
>>> non-issue, and Joe Homepage might be interested to do it
>>> too, inciting more and more like him to go 3D. The
>>> cumulative effect of that could very well just propel the
>>> consumer market to 3D. Only Flash could match it, and we
>> all
>>> know how effective that is (ex: XTraNormal). Since Flash
>> can
>>> actually exist inside the 3D space, imagine the
>> bombshell. I
>>> think Joe Homepage is much more capable than is given
>>> credit.
>>>
>>> Granted, we first have to go back to VRML1 for this to
>>> happen; we need to start somewhere, but progress should
>> come
>>> steadily since we know exactly where to go. There are
>> also
>>> improvements to plugin installation in the pipeline to
>>> facilitate the existing scenario. I'd rather play on both
>>> front, so that one may lead to the other, until maybe the
>>> first can sustain itself. X3D plugin improvements will
>> have
>>> a determinant effect on that happening or not, since they
>>> have a long lead-time advantage. Both content delivery
>>> methods can be complementary though (regardless of
>>> standards), and either way, overall, this is win-win.
>> Now,
>>> that gets me dreaming again. Imagine what would happen if
>> we
>>> loaded an X3D plugin running Flash inside something like
>>> XML3D? The possibilities are mind-boggling. :) Perhaps
>> none
>>> of this is useful to you, just worth considering.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lauren
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   >-----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Len Bullard [mailto:cbullard at hiwaay.net]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:34 AM
>>>> To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>>>> Cc: 'Philipp Slusallek'; 'Joe D Williams'; 'Chris
>> Marrin';
>>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>>>> HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>>>> W3C
>>>>
>>>> The dream?  I dunno.  I just needed something to
>> decorate
>>>> songs. :)
>>>>
>>>> It can be done with or without standards for 3D.  This
>> is
>>>> purely a market to
>>>> customer challenge.  For this kind of application, X3D
>> is
>>>> in no way
>>>> deficient.
>>>>
>>>> The VRML design is resilient as evidenced by the
>>>> reincorporation of it in
>>>> every new proposed design-cum-standard.   Discussions of
>>>> strengths enhance
>>>> resiliency.
>>>>
>>>> X3D works today if you have the chops to build with it.
>>>> Daunting, but for
>>>> sampling to video, worth the time and cheap say FREE.
>>>>
>>>> XML3D is where VRML 1.0 was when the Intervista browser
>> was
>>>> created.
>>>> Whatever advantages accrue to the code base, they have
>> to
>>>> ultimately be
>>>> realized in applications used by the workforce or they
>> are
>>>> hobbyist
>>>> technology.  The bet this time is direct browser
>> rendering
>>>> ensures that the
>>>> engines required (debate plugins but demonstrably, they
>>>> work) can be more
>>>> universal (standard) and less maintenance prone
>> therefore
>>>> will be used by
>>>> the class of users who can use them:  app builders.  Not
>>>> Joe Homepage.  He
>>>> uses what app builders build.
>>>>
>>>> The history of 3D on the web is those apps don't get
>> built.
>>>> Here is a
>>>> failure of imagination.  XTraNormal took a similar
>>>> environment, added
>>>> reasonable text to voice, used a gestural library, a
>> drag
>>>> and drop and
>>>> created a pop phenomenon, thus, winning on the street.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, 3D is in web standards hell.
>>>>
>>>> len
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: GLG [mailto:info at 3dnetproductions.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:45 AM
>>>> To: 'Len Bullard'
>>>> Cc: 'Philipp Slusallek'; 'Joe D Williams'; 'Chris
>> Marrin';
>>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>>>> HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>>>> W3C
>>>>
>>>> Len wrote;
>>>>> model (eg, XtraNormal, Jing, YouTube, etc.)  A services
>>>>> model for any of
>>>>> these technologies relies on content builders creating
>>>>> libraries of
>>>>> reusuable parts but this as a content requirement
>> doesn't
>>>>> require a standard
>>>>> as it does an integrated builder system that is easy to
>>>> use
>>>>> and compose.
>>>>> IOW, YouTube has a format standard:  MP4.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Building point and click persistent scenes/worlds seems
>>>> very
>>>> close here. It is not difficult to imagine web only
>>>> interfaces to this, even using just primitives, and
>>>> supported by SQL back-ends in a manner akin to SL. It
>> looks
>>>> like all of the parts are there or will be. It is only a
>>>> matter of putting it together and I suspect many will
>> do,
>>>> thus turning the web into the giant virtual space we've
>>>> been
>>>> waiting for. At the very least, the potential for this
>> is
>>>> enormous. Maybe year 2012 (or 2013 who knows) would be
>> the
>>>> year when it reaches critical mass and the web finally
>>>> turns
>>>> 3D. Reality is made of dreams like this. This dream I'm
>>>> really starting to believe in.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Lauren
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> X3D-Public mailing list
>>> X3D-Public at web3d.org
>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
> 
> 