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

GLG info at 3dnetproductions.com
Thu Jan 6 02:38:55 PST 2011


>this discussion is not some form of beauty contest to pick
>one of the systems as winner.

I understand this Johannes. But it is useful to try and
determine which system is the closest to what is desired
going forward, as a design philosophy. Both systems have
fundamental underlying differences, and I am trying to put
that in perspective by bringing in a little structure.


>The current systems are the input and not the output of the
incubator group.

Exactly. Please reread the following lines:

>> perhaps XML3D should be the starting implementation when
>> attempting to integrate one into the other.


>Both demonstrate that value in the general idea:
>Declarative 3D in the Web.

Yes, and they are both very close in that value. Because of
this, it is difficult to proceed with a clear sense of
direction. The alternative would be to develop both systems
concurrently, and doing that does nothing to combine the
good attributes of both into the output. In addition to
that, the resulting split energy and redundancy can only
impede development. Wouldn't you agree to say that, if all
involved worked on the same system, the output would
benefit?


>But we are still in the process of understanding the
>requirements.

Yes, and I try to make that process easier. I believe the
list of criteria is a fair representation of the general
requirements going forward 'at this point in time', not
necessarily of the specific final output. If you think I
missed something or something should not be there, you are
welcome to propose changes to that list.


>How a final system looks like is totally open.

My list of criteria did not specify any technology at the
output. This is meant to try and see where we stand, if we
have a consensus that goes further than just say "we want
declarative 3D". My little exercise can also help identify
where we diverge.

As an outsider to both systems, it does not really matter to
me which becomes predominant at the output; it could be a
combination of both. Ultimately, the requirements will
largely reflect the general ideologies and preferences of
each system's underpinning (grossly XFlow vs WebGL). Perhaps
more debate is needed, but it seems to me we do need to make
a choice. Perhaps a chart outlining the characteristics of
both systems in detail would be useful, but I am not sure we
need it.

Lauren


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Johannes Behr
>[mailto:johannes.behr at igd.fraunhofer.de]
>Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 3:30 AM
>To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>Cc: 'Chris Marrin'; 'Philipp Slusallek'; 'Joe D Williams';
>'Len Bullard'; x3d-public at web3d.org
>Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5 meeting
>discussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C
>
>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 summarized with the following
>evaluation criteria, which I have placed in reversed order
>of priority (to assign weight to each criterion - 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 upgradeability 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 starting 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 3dnetproductions.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 gives XML3D a
>slight advantage (34 to 32), but is less precise since no
>weight can be assigned to the criteria.
>
>This is not a shameless plug but a genuine attempt at
>reconciling the issues at hand.
>
>Cheers,
>Lauren
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>X3D-Public mailing list
>X3D-Public at web3d.org
>http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org




More information about the X3D-Public mailing list