[x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4

[Joe D Williams]

>> That -and the proliferation of other formats like GLAM-

GLAM is not really a different format, it is a different encoding 
style of the markup of the same data stuffs. The first GLAM example 
uses a mesh with declared indices; an early X3D example uses an 
IndexedFaceSet. Notice the 'data' keystrokes are the same. If you 
look, some of the GLAM names and definitions and data are even the 
same as used for X3D and Collada and many others.

X3D needs to get involved when there is some important data stuffs 
from those proliferated formats that cannot be transported into an X3D 
scene. That might indicate some new or evolved technique or technology 
that would be a candidate for the X3D standards-track.

Thanks,
Joe

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leonard Daly" <Leonard.Daly at realism.com>
To: <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4


> Doug,
>
>
>>
>> OK thanks Leonard.
>> -Doug
>> more..
>> I don't think I can help - not a dom or california expert.
>> more..
>> But I gather no or not-enough key players have submitted what they 
>> are
>> doing for consideration as a standard ie X3Dom is a proprietary 
>> format.
>
> That is one of the issues. No one has submitted their work; however, 
> the
> X3D WG did decide that X3DOM was a prototype implementation a couple 
> of
> years ago.
>
>
>> That -and the proliferation of other formats like GLAM- may 
>> indicated
>> investor desire for prorpietary / copyright /patented technology 
>> with
>> the upside potential of 'lock-in' and 'switching costs'.  Lets call
>> this the LOCKIN hypothesis for format proliferation.
>
> There is always that investor desire. The users need to fight back
> against it demanding open standards. That has happened many times, 
> even
> including Microsoft Office.
>
>
>> If LOCKIN is the motivation, then one thing web3d.org can do is 
>> sell
>> proprietary lock-in formats. Take v3.3 and scramble it through a
>> translator/generator so it looks different, and sell it as a
>> proprietary format, with lockin/switching costs for users, pleasing 
>> to
>> investors. Except _keep_ the scrambler/translator/generator 
>> pattern.
>> So that X3D files can be quickly translated into the proprietary 
>> format.
>
> Not really at all. The entire foundation of the Consortium is that 
> it is
> an open standard. "Selling" a lock-in format goes against the
> fundamental charter, by-laws, and philosophy.
>
>
>
>> more..
>> Likewise if you break out the details for all the issues, even 
>> though
>> we may not be dom experts, we may come up with ideas.
>> For example Creative Strategy (a book) shows how to break a
>> problem/issue into elements. Then look in other domains for 
>> solutions
>> to each element. Then pick a creative combination of the element
>> solutions into a whole solution.
>> http://sites.google.com/site/airdrieinnovationinstitute/creative-strategy
>> more..
>
> Most of my philosophy is written up at
> http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40/authors-notes
>
> The specific case of DOM vs. not-DOM is that DOM is the structure 
> and
> API of web documents. Applications are moving to the web. There will
> always be a place for stand-alone applications, but the biggest 
> interest
> will be in documents and content viewable in a browser. X3D content 
> DOM
> accessible allows more people to work in more creative ways 
> integrating
> 3D content into their application in a manner they already know.
>
> To give a related example, I have seen the following question asked 
> many
> times (in various forms and forums):
>
>     "What should I learn, jQuery or JavaScript?"
>
> If your 3D content works with jQuery, people won't ask "Why should I
> learn another API?"
>
>
>> For example if you could break out for us the elements of why DOM
>> integration is desired. I gather the cobweb v3.3 approach isn't dom
>> integrated. What's wrong with cobweb, and what's so much better 
>> about
>> x3dom, for example, and give details of why one is popular in
>> california, and the other not. Then with the elements, we can look 
>> and
>> see if there's something inbetween.
>
> I have not had a chance to really study cobweb. I don't think there 
> is
> anything wrong with it, but it does not suit my needs at this time
> because it does not integrate with the DOM. It's not that X3DOM is
> popular in CA and cobweb is not -- X3DOM has been around a lot 
> longer
> and has greater exposure. It's that 3D and VR are really big things 
> here
> in CA in the tech, entertainment, and other communities.
>
>
>> For example being able to do movietexture may be easier with dom
>> integration. OK but then could the node-specific implementation of 
>> a
>> non-dom x3d include dom functionality? Or perhaps you want to be 
>> able
>> to do jQuery. OK could there be a special xQuery for x3d, and 
>> jQuery
>> delegates to it? And so forth.
>> The more breakout of the issues you give, the more chance a 
>> non-dom,
>> non-california expert can chime in.
>
>
> DOM is a technical and business choice, not a geographic one.
>
>
> Leonard Daly
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Creative Strategy - Airdrie Innovation Institute
>> <http://sites.google.com/site/airdrieinnovationinstitute/creative-strategy>
>> sites.google.com
>> Prosperity through productivity, productivity through innovation,
>> innovation through culture, culture through aggregated and
>> disseminated insights and processes, in Airdrie Alberta Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> Creative Strategy - Airdrie Innovation Institute
>> <https://sites.google.com/site/airdrieinnovationinstitute/creative-strategy>
>> sites.google.com
>> Prosperity through productivity, productivity through innovation,
>> innovation through culture, culture through aggregated and
>> disseminated insights and processes, in Airdrie Alberta Canada
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* x3d-public <x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> on behalf of 
>> Leonard
>> Daly <web3d at realism.com>
>> *Sent:* January 11, 2016 7:46 PM
>> *To:* x3d-public at web3d.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4
>> Doug,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply. The Consortium has known this time would be
>> coming for at least 2 years, probably closer to 4. As a standards
>> organization, the Consortium should not be pushing something new;
>> however, there is considerable investment in the past and that has
>> been one of the strengths of X3D. Code from 20 years ago can still 
>> be run.
>>
>> >From everything that I have seen in 20 years working with HTML;
>> applications that are going to run in the browser, need to work 
>> with
>> and interact with the DOM. I am happy to consider any 
>> implementation
>> that successfully does so.
>>
>> Right now work in the Consortium is on polishing V3.3. As far as I 
>> can
>> tell, the only active work on X3D with HTML is work I am doing and
>> occasional reviews by the X3D Working Group.
>>
>> It is important to pay attention to what the marketplace is
>> developing, but the proposals coming out (GLAM, A-Frame, etc.) do 
>> not
>> support X3D or any structures from X3D. I believe that there is a 
>> lot
>> of maturation already for parts of the environment. The Consortium
>> could play a very strong role in steering the direction of 
>> declarative
>> 3D. We will have no role if we just sit on the sidelines and watch.
>>
>> In the past the Consortium succeeded by lasting longer than anyone
>> else. This time is different because the organizations involves are
>> bigger (Google, Facebook), more diverse (Mozilla, Hollywood 
>> studios,
>> startups in San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego;
>> just to name the major centers in California), and multiple 
>> industries
>> (3D printing, entertainment, healthcare and wellness, industrial
>> maintenance). There is no lasting out the others now.
>>
>> Leonard Daly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> From my perspective^, V4 has had to 'burn the candle from both 
>>> ends'
>>> - discover what's possible/doable/practical in html/webgl while
>>> moving x3d in that direction. So being too quick/early with a V4 
>>> may
>>> be sub-optimal.  Maybe V4 is the wrong name. For this stage of the 
>>> game.
>>> What might help is starting a new series of standards from 1.0 ie
>>> webx3dA 1.0, webx3dB 1.0 with A being the X3Dom style and B being 
>>> the
>>> cobweb style. That would allow for a C, D or anything else that 
>>> comes
>>> a long. Then if/when the world chooses a winner, when the dust
>>> settles a bit more, rename it.
>>> In other words, I think you could/should be capturing things as 
>>> they
>>> mature naturally, rather than steering/forcing the whole process.
>>> Relax a bit.
>>> -Doug
>>> ^about me:
>>> I'm a self-declared pseudo expert in VR: I follow in others 
>>> footsteps
>>> and try and catch on.
>>> * I've worked in spaghetti C native code in project freeWRL for 6 
>>> years
>>> * taught game programming course in DX/C++ 6 week
>>> * animated an industrial simulator in .wrl for a year
>>> * modeled a historical townsite project in blender, exported to 
>>> x3d
>>> for flux and kml for googleEarth  and ported x3d to x3dom and 
>>> cobweb :
>>> https://sites.google.com/site/airdriehistoricaltour/
>>> And currently working toward accommodating HMD emulators and 
>>> desktop
>>> configurations in freewrl (still native/C code, V3.3).
>>> Before that, 2 decades of photogrammetric systems engineering and
>>> stereo machine vision algorithms.
>>> Airdrie Historical Virtual Tour
>>> <https://sites.google.com/site/airdriehistoricaltour/>
>>> sites.google.com
>>> Airdrie Historical Virtual Tour - 3D rendering in googleEarth,
>>> virtual reality and webgl of early Airdrie,AB townsite, with 
>>> photos
>>> placed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* x3d-public <x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> on behalf of 
>>> David
>>> Murphy <d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie>
>>> *Sent:* January 11, 2016 5:35 AM
>>> *To:* Leonard Daly
>>> *Cc:* x3dom-users at lists.sourceforge.net; X3D Graphics public 
>>> mailing list
>>> *Subject:* Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4
>>> hi Leonard,
>>>
>>> I completely understand your frustration with the situation.
>>> Looking at things objectively I believe that the recent phenomenal
>>> interest in VR has taken the community by surprise. The X3D/VRML
>>> community has been comfortable operating at a particular pace,
>>> however circumstances are overtaking us.
>>>
>>> I was preparing the first lecture of my Semester 2 VR class over 
>>> the
>>> weekend, and was taken aback by the sheer number of startup (or
>>> should it be upstart) attempts at developing a ‘VR’ 
>>> language/platform
>>> (proprietary or open).
>>>
>>> This ‘new’ VR industry is either unaware of X3D or has chosen to
>>> bypass, for whatever reason, the standard.
>>> If this isn’t addressed soon X3D may become irrelevant, which none 
>>> of
>>> us want to see.
>>>
>>> I think one of the fundamental challenges facing the X3D WG and
>>> community of users and developers, is simply the lack of awareness 
>>> of
>>> the standard in the VR industry.
>>>
>>> I’m not a member of the WG, however as a member of the X3D 
>>> community
>>> I genuinely appreciate the efforts of the WG, and so I will do
>>> whatever I can to promote/champion X3D.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> rgds Dave
>>> __________________________
>>> David Murphy
>>>
>>> Department of Computer Science
>>> Room 1.77
>>> Western Gateway Building
>>> University College Cork
>>> Ireland
>>>
>>>
>>> e: d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie <mailto:d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie>
>>> map: http://bit.ly/WGB_UCC
>>> w: http://multimedia.ucc.ie
>>> w: http://www.imclab.ucc.ie
>>> w: http://www.cs.ucc.ie/staff/dmurphy.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 06:04, Leonard Daly <web3d at realism.com
>>>> <mailto:web3d at realism.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Last week I sent a message to the X3D WG about my concerns on 
>>>> lack
>>>> of progress for developing a V4 specification. This message is
>>>> expanding the reach of the original message and providing 
>>>> additional
>>>> requested material, specifically examples of situations where I
>>>> would want and/or expect X3D to run in a browser. The list of
>>>> examples is being expanded as developments occur.
>>>>
>>>> The marketplace is making significant progress in 
>>>> commercialization
>>>> of virtual and augmented reality. There is no standard format for
>>>> expressing 3D content. The marketplace will choose at least one
>>>> format and it will not likely be X3D.  Already there are 
>>>> alternative
>>>> markup languages emerging that attempt to do what X3D has been 
>>>> doing
>>>> for decades: create an HTML like language for 3D graphics.  GLAM 
>>>> is
>>>> an example proposed by Tony Parisi, and most recently Mozilla’s
>>>> A-frame, released 3 weeks ago, both attempting to speak in the
>>>> language of web developers to bring VR/AR to the browser.
>>>>
>>>> I am very frustrated in the lack of progress of the Working Group 
>>>> in
>>>> developing a specification for X3D V4. There are number of issues
>>>> that have been raised about the fundamentals of designs of X3D 
>>>> that
>>>> appear to be incompatible with an HTML/DOM environment. A partial
>>>> list includes the following:
>>>> * name-scope handling
>>>> * scripting
>>>> * interfaces to the nodes and fields through the DOM API
>>>> * event handling
>>>> * profile structure and contents
>>>> * newly supported formats (geometry and media)
>>>>
>>>> Examples of X3D/X3DOM:
>>>> <http://tools.realism.com/x3d-v4-issue-examples>http://tools.realism.com/x3d-v4-issue-examples
>>>> There are other concerns about event model that are not expressed 
>>>> in
>>>> these examples mostly due to being unable to create an example 
>>>> that
>>>> clearly shows the problem. It does exists and you may see some of
>>>> that in sporadic or jerky movement in the animation examples 
>>>> using
>>>> X3DOM.
>>>>
>>>> I have a concept specification that is getting updated at
>>>> http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40. The was first 
>>>> sent
>>>> to the X3D WG in November and has had a couple of other 
>>>> discussions.
>>>>
>>>> My specific technical concerns with the specification are listed 
>>>> in
>>>> the Author's Notes at
>>>> http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40/authors-notes
>>>>
>>>> Most importantly, it is not clear to me who the WG believes is 
>>>> the
>>>> target audience for the specification and how the specification 
>>>> will
>>>> meet that audience’s needs.
>>>>
>>>> As Co-Chair on Sabbatical and current member of the WG, I need to
>>>> take some responsibility for not getting there. I have been 
>>>> working
>>>> on developing a new specification and the beginning of an
>>>> open-source web-based application for building scenes in the new
>>>> specification. The web application is called “Basx3D - 3D the 
>>>> HTML
>>>> Way”. I have posted an article about it’s initial release -
>>>> http://realism.com/blog/basx3d. This post and one describing the 
>>>> X3D
>>>> V4 proposal are publicly available.
>>>>
>>>> The application is targeted at web developers who do not need to
>>>> know the details of creating an X3D by hand. The concept was 
>>>> based
>>>> on Unreal Engine and Unity editors. I will be continuing 
>>>> development
>>>> of both the application and proposal on a frequent and regular
>>>> basis. Basx3D and the proposed specification function as a 
>>>> two-way
>>>> development effort with Basx3D reflecting the proposal and 
>>>> providing
>>>> implementation information and experience back to the 
>>>> specification.
>>>>
>>>> Although outside of its scope, the WG must be aware of the 
>>>> audience
>>>> to which the standard is written, and the audience to which the
>>>> standard is being promoted.  This concept is crucial to the 
>>>> future
>>>> adoption of X3D and should ultimately be agreed upon by the BOD, 
>>>> but
>>>> the WG needs to understand and follow this strategy which will
>>>> ultimately influence prioritization of WG activity.
>>>>
>>>> I am firmly committed to an open, royalty free, ISO ratified
>>>> standard that communicates 3D data and its behaviors over 
>>>> networks,
>>>> especially the dominant global network which is the internet, and
>>>> which universally supports HTML5.  I don’t want to see the 
>>>> decades
>>>> of work and passion that have been invested in the standards
>>>> maintained and promoted by the Web3D Consortium relegated to the
>>>> corridors of obscurity.  Because of many trends in software and
>>>> hardware, a nexus of opportunity has been created like never 
>>>> before
>>>> of which we can take advantage to catapult the Consortium’s
>>>> standards to significant global adoption.  Let’s not miss this 
>>>> chance!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Leonard Daly
>>>> Basx3D and X3D V4 Specification Proposal Author
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In Full Support
>>>> Mike Aratow
>>>> Treasurer, Web3D Consortium
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> *Leonard Daly*
>>>> X3D Co-Chair
>>>> Cloud Consultant
>>>> President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> x3d-public mailing list
>>>> x3d-public at web3d.org <mailto:x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> x3d-public mailing list
>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *Leonard Daly*
>> X3D Co-Chair
>> Cloud Consultant
>> President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> x3d-public mailing list
>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>
>
> -- 
> *Leonard Daly*
> 3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
> X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical
> LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
> President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>