[x3d-public] announce: X3D Java Scene Authoring Interface (SAI) open source, initial review release

[Roy Walmsley]

Hi Don,

Yes, good idea to discuss this and get agreement. As you say, Dick's
presence is essential. Always better to get it right first time. Just not
always possible!


Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Brutzman [mailto:brutzman at nps.edu] 
Sent: 23 October 2016 00:24
To: Roy Walmsley <roy.walmsley at ntlworld.com>; 'X3D Graphics public mailing
list' <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] announce: X3D Java Scene Authoring Interface (SAI)
open source, initial review release

On 7/2/2016 8:31 AM, Roy Walmsley wrote:
> Don,
>
> This is great work done. Well done.

thank you Roy.

> You know me - can't help but be picky!

um, if the details weren't important, they wouldn't be the details.  8)

> I looked at the  draft Annex B for the 19777-2 Java language binding. I
looked at the title of the annex, B.1.1 Introduction, and then Table B.1
Topics. As you can see there is a mismatch.

OK... here are links to compare autogenerated annex with original
specification annex.

	Autogenerated: draft Annex B Node type interfaces
	
http://www.web3d.org/specifications/java/draftJavaLanguageBindingAnnexes/Par
t2/nodeTypeInterfaces.html

	(former original Abstract node interfaces)
	
http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19777-2/V3.0/Part2/abstracts.h
tml

> I see two alternatives to resolve this:
>
> 1)      Change the title and the introduction to reflect the contents.
>
> 2)      Separate the contents into smaller annexes. For example, "Abstract
type interfaces",
>
> Now look at B.3 Auxiliary node type interfaces. And then the topics within
it. These are not node types. They would be better titled 'Auxiliary type
interfaces'.
>
> I also think that field interfaces need to be first. Look at 19775, 19776
series standards. Fields are derived before nodes, because all nodes need
fields, and only some fields need nodes.

These seem like reasonable improvements.  Usage of the terms nodes,
interfaces and fields can be slippery - there is already a rename in the
annex title pending.

However, since options (1) and (2) above each relate to specification
document structure, am hesitating to make piecemeal improvements that might
lead to other inconsistencies elsewhere/later.  Don't want to chase a
problem by possibly pushing inconsistencies around.

How about we look at abstract SAI, EcmaScript SAI Language Binding and Java
SAI Language Binding together on a working-group call (ensuring that Dick is
present) and decide on similar/common structure for each specification?

Given the importance of getting this right, getting the specification
organizations reconciled and documented in Mantis will help.  I can then
easily change the original-spec titles in the autogenerated annexes to
match.

all the best, Don
-- 
Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br       brutzman at nps.edu
Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA   +1.831.656.2149
X3D graphics, virtual worlds, navy robotics http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman