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

Philipp Slusallek slusallek at cs.uni-saarland.de
Thu Jan 6 04:08:06 PST 2011


Hi,

X3DOM currently doe not have the right interfaces for XFlow. But we can
decide that our future version should have such interfaces.

The key point here is the orthogonal design that allow to combine two
modules (XML3D and XFlow in this case) easily and seamlessly via the DOM.

	Philipp

Am 06.01.2011 12:52, schrieb GLG:
>> I believe you misunderstood some basic pricibles. Both
>> systems
>> have WebGL and Native implementations. XFlow is a (not yet
> 
> 
> According to x3dom.org there is "native WebGL support" but
> that is still WebGL. No? Please enlighten me on that meaning
> if you can; I am only aware of one version of X3DOM. 
> 
> 
> 
>> publicly available) data Flow system which could sit on top
>> of any data-contatiner.
>> It should work with XML3D, X3DOM or anything else it could
>> interface.
>>
> 
> That XFlow would actually work with X3DOM I have never heard
> either but possible. Perhaps someone else can add to this. 
> 
> Lauren
> 
> 
> 
>> best regards
>> johannes
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
> 
> 




More information about the X3D-Public mailing list