[x3d-public] Building an X3D Object Model - Progress Review after Step 3

[Don Brutzman]

Roy, thanks a lot for the in-depth analysis.  The key to the gaps you are identifying is in the following:

On 10/22/2017 7:10 AM, Roy Walmsley wrote:
> *Problem 11*: In the draft Java language binding specification for X3D V3.3 the node definitions in Annex C do not meet the requirements described in clauses 3 to 6, in turn failing to meet the requirements of the abstract SAI specification ISO/IEC 19775-2:2015.

X3DJSAIL provides two hierarchies: one corresponding to the existing (and old) Java SAI interfaces, and the other defining concrete classes that implement those abstract interfaces with a large number of additional utility methods added.

So the gaps you are identifying appear to be long-existing gaps between the abstract SAI 19775-2 and the Java SAI 19777-2 language binding.  When building X3DJSAIL I opted to start with how X3D Java has been accomplished in the past.

Yes indeed they need scrutiny and correction for proper alignment.  That said, am not seeing anything particularly unusual in any of the SAI constructs that your are examining.

So we should be able to align these OK.  Of note is that I have included sporadic Abstract SAI links in the Javadoc, along with Java SAI links wherever appropriate.  So that will help us align things as well.

The X3DJSAIL links for these kinds of things are

	X3DJSAIL: Specification Changes under Consideration
	http://www.web3d.org/specifications/java/X3DJSAIL.html#SpecificationChanges

	"Significant specification work is needed to align X3D Abstract Scene Access Interface (SAI)	and corresponding language-binding specifications, including the X3D Java SAI."

and
	X3DJSAIL: TODO Planned Work
	http://www.web3d.org/specifications/java/X3DJSAIL.html#

We want to grab this big Unified Object Model tiger by the scruff of its neck, not the tail or a paw (or a tooth)... and so am thinking that, after a few broad comparisons, we will want to proceed deliberately.

The existing X3D Unified Object Model definitions are exceptionally well aligned with X3D Abstract Spec 19775-1 and X3D XML Schema, which has been tested against thousands of models.  Am expecting that the best way for us to really verify correctness (or improve definitions) in the X3D Abstract SAI 19775-2 will first compare it to that object model.

	http://www.web3d.org/specifications/X3DObjectModel-3.3.xml

Since JavaScript and JSON and possibly other languages/documentation pages can flow from the object model, it provides a strong way for us to test all variations.

Although imposing it is also heartening that (a) you are shining a light on long-known gaps, and (b) we keep converging and unifying the multiple X3D specifications to good effect.

Good topic for weekly teleconference.  Looking forward to this group's continued progress together.   8)

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