[x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D
Joe D Williams
joedwil at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 19 12:13:56 PST 2016
One real important item in the standards-track for web3D is that you
have a couple of implementations, at least one open and free. I'm just
saying from experience that the best way to try and enter the process
is to put in a spec comment, then follow up with documentation and get
interest in a second implementation by another conforming x3D browser.
Basically web3d has a special relationship with appropriate parts of
ISO that allows a project with web3d BOD approval to propose a spec
project. If the ISO group says OK then a working group can provide
example implemtations and spec pages to the ISO members to vote on
using a process that includes having the members comment and vote on a
couple of drafts Working Draft (internal web3d), Committe Draft (first
vote by ISO memebers), DIS (second vote) then leading up to an IS
(International Standard) version of the documentation. Web3D is not
usual in that web3d maintains enough control to provide free access to
the ISO spec.
----- Original Message -----
From: "doug sanden" <highaspirations at hotmail.com>
To: "X3D Public" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D
>I suspect some of the web3d.org processes are geared to defending
>against proprietary claims. By preventing them.
> Right now, its all or none. Either you become a member and sign off
> on all the agreements. Or else none of your brilliant suggestions
> can be used.
> It might help if there was something half way. Perhaps you sign a
> short form. And thereafter, when you wrap an idea in comment's like:
> WEB3D RULE #77 START >>>
> <<< WEB3D RULE #77 END
> then whatever is in there would get rule 77 treatment. Whatever rule
> 77 is. Let's say it means you're giving up all future claims on it,
> or whatever the longform says. But someone might try some kind of
> bait-and-switch, or give up part of an idea, then fill in details
> later in a different permission scope.
> I suspect that's why they like a person -new member- to sign-away
> all future claims in one shot. Easier to manage.
> If you have a solution for all that it might help open things up.
> That's one issue.
> Then from the app user's point of view, they are going to be putting
> a lot of effort into generating content. They aren't legal experts.
> But they would probably like to know what part of what they are
> doing is only served by one proprietary app, and what part is
> portable to other apps. So they can decide how much effort to put
> into doing their content a certain way.
> If all they see is 'x3d standards compatible' or a statement like
> that, it might be misleading.
> On the other hand, if the user is looking for some compatibility so
> that -at least with some effort- they could port their content to
> other apps if needed, it would be helpful for them to know if an app
> is somehow similar to the x3d standards. So it doesn't seem quite
> fair to not say something about x3d if the app is close.
> So if you have a solution for that - a way to be clear, while also
> giving credit and warnings either way, that might help.
> From: Yves Piguet <yves.piguet at gmail.com>
> Sent: November 19, 2016 11:16 AM
> To: doug sanden
> Cc: X3D Public
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D
> On 19 Nov 2016, at 18:07, doug sanden
> <highaspirations at hotmail.com<mailto:highaspirations at hotmail.com>>
> OK Yves, starting to sink in. Thanks for repeating your Oct 13
> What you're saying is for $138 swiss francs, and a bit of paper
> work, CalergaVR could conform to web3d standards by defining and
> registering its profile.
> Not sure it would be so easy, I haven't read ISO/IEC 9973. I don't
> know if a registration request is guaranteed to be accepted if the
> paperwork is done properly, and if it takes weeks, months or years.
> I wouldn't be surprised if it costs much more.
> Q. is there a subtle difference between a standard, and an specific
> 'application interface' (is there a better term)?
> - lets say a 'standard' means anyone can implement the standard. So
> if you register the CalergaVR profile, I could write a browser that
> conforms to the CalergaVR profile and you would have no recourse in
> the courts to block my effort as stealing proprietary intellectual
> Calerga VR's extensions are roughly what I've suggested here. I do
> it in good faith with the hope it can be useful to me (because of
> other's feedback) as well as to others if they're convinced and
> implement them. It would be great also for Calerga VR if extensions
> like field expressions are adopted widely, and I certainly won't sue
> anyone for that. It's also obvious to me that some of the things I
> consider useful, such as my NumberInput node, won't be welcome.
> - an 'application interface' can be proprietary.
> Subject to fair use, as I understand the Oracle vs. Google outcome.
> You can block me insofar as it's not part of a standard
> I could probably try, at least.
> And if there is this difference then I suspect the profile
> registration process in the web3d specs is for the 'standard'.
> Maybe. I don't know the licensing policy of ISO.
> Q. are you proposing these x- or x/ profiles would be standards, or
> proprietary, or could/should there be both?
> They would be reserved for custom profiles for the owner of the
> corresponding domain name, without further registration, like
> namespaces in Java.
> By "standard" do you mean "open"? Could be both open or proprietary,
> whatever the domain name owner decides. I'm not fond of proprietary
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
More information about the x3d-public