[X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5 meeting discussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C

[Johannes Behr]

Hi, 

this discussion is not some form of beauty contest to pick one of the systems as winner.
You misunderstood the current status. The current systems are the input and not the output of the incubator group.
Both demonstrate that value in the general idea: Declarative 3D in the Web.
But we are still in the process of understanding the requirements. 
How a final system looks like is totally open.

regards
johannes

>>>> I think talking about changing the node
>> hierarchy, DOM or event system will result in failure.
>>>> 
>>>> We all agree! This will not happen. We see the current
>> DOM structure and event system as building ground. We build
>> on existing W3C standards.
>>>> The question is only how we utilize what is already
>> there.
>>> 
>>> Right, and I think the way to start is to try it, see
>> where the ragged edges are, and then sand those smooth. The
>> real question is what applications are you trying to  do?
>> 
>> Every application which can be mapped to a scene-graph and
>> heavily depends on user-interaction.
>> High-End games are not on this list. Applications like the
>> Body-Brower must be easy to build with the final system.
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I think the above touches the heart of the problem. Defining
> exactly what it is we are trying to accomplish is crucial.
> My take on it can be summerized with the following
> evaluation criteria, which I have placed in reversed order
> of priority (to assign weight to each criteria - see below).
> You are of course welcome to voice your opinions for changes
> within the parameters of this discussion. 
> 
> CRITERIA:
> 
> 5- Compliance with existing W3C standards; more advanced
> capabilities can always be added via plugins if no other
> solutions can be found.
> 
> 4- Long term potential for use and upgradability of the
> implementation. Something that is as solidly grounded as
> possible, so there is excellent potential for building on
> top of it. Foresight is very important here, so that content
> will not get broken down the road.
> 
> 3- While user applications should be easy to build, this
> should not take precedence over the flexibility of the
> system, limiting it in some way. 
> 
> 2- The implementation's speed to market should not take
> undue precedence either; It is worth the wait to do
> something the best possible way, rather than choosing the
> fatest, easiest route. But how close we are to an actual
> working implementation should be taken into account.
> 
> 1- Baby step vs Big step. I have added this here because it
> is a point of contention. So the requirement here would be -
> the consensus of all involved. IOW, objectively, how popular
> is the proposed implementation.
> 
> 
> Having laid down the above criteria, now let's try to
> measure the proposed solutions with relation to those
> criteria and associated weight. In the left column of each
> list is the criteria number and thus its weight. In the
> middle column is the 'grade' I have given each solution on a
> scale of 1 to 9 (This is of course my opinion and highly
> subjective - your input is welcome). In the right column
> you'll see the calculated rating for each criteria. The
> TOTAL at the bottom should be an good indicator of where we
> stand. I have tried to be as objective as possible, taking
> into account many of the opinions encountered. I do not know
> the results before attempting this, but this is fun so let's
> so how it turns out. Here we go:
> 
> ---------------------------
> Weight * Grade = Rating
> ---------------------------
> X3DOM
> 
> 5 * 7 = 35 (W3C Compliance)
> 4 * 5 = 20 (Foresight)
> 3 * 6 = 18 (Flexibility)
> 2 * 7 = 14 (Close to Market)
> 1 * 7 = 7  (Popular)
> TOTAL: 94
> ---------------------------
> XML3D
> 
> 5 * 7 = 35 (W3C Compliance)
> 4 * 8 = 32 (Foresight)
> 3 * 9 = 27 (Flexibility)
> 2 * 5 = 10 (Close to Market)
> 1 * 5 = 5  (Popular)
> TOTAL: 109
> ---------------------------
> 
> Here we have XML3D given an advantage of 15 points. So
> perhaps XML3D should be the sparting implementation when
> attempting to integrate one into the other. The area where I
> am having the most indecision is with each proposed
> implementation's adherence to W3C standards. I simply do not
> know at this point, so I gave them both the same value. But
> if each one of us here give their opinion for the grade of
> each criteria, we can average the results and get over with
> this discussion quickly. This would allow us to reach a
> consensus upon which to act in a coordinated effort.
> 
> You might be wondering how I came up with this scheme. I am
> simply applying the same basic 'fuzzy' principle that my
> Windows Mobile application called PocketAI 2.2 uses. Back in
> 2003 I think it was, I built this to help the decision
> process when encountering difficult choices. I have used it
> numerous times and so have countless users, and I can
> honestly says that it generally works; breaking down complex
> issues into smaller parts. Please see 3dneproductions.com to
> download a copy if you are interested to try it for yourself
> (Make sure to read the Help file so you understand how the
> app works before attempting to use it. I can also email you
> the above *.pai2 decision problem file if you'd like, and
> provide free license key to members of this group so you can
> save your own files). 
> 
> Not detailed here, is also a Boolean method of computation
> that is part of the application. This also give XML3D a
> slight advantage (34 to 32), but is less precise since no
> weight can be asigned to the criteria. 
> 
> This is not a shameless plug but a genuine attempt at
> reconcilling the issues at hand.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lauren
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Dr. Johannes Behr
Leiter Projektbereich VR

Fraunhofer-Institut für Graphische Datenverarbeitung IGD
Fraunhoferstr. 5  |  64283 Darmstadt  |  Germany
Tel +49 6151 155-510  |  Fax +49 6151 155-196
johannes.behr at igd.fraunhofer.de  |  www.igd.fraunhofer.de