[x3d-public] Proposed new Profile

[Leonard Daly]

It may make some sense to combine several X3D profiles; however, the 
three profiles mentioned (Interchange, CAD Interchange, and Model) do 
not have just a few nodes of differences.

*Interchange* - Base X3D profile for X3D-modeled scenes. Includes 
several nodes related to scene definition/management.
*CAD Interchange* - Focus on CAD data structures. Includes NURBS (no 
other existing profile does), but does not include triangles. Includes 
some scene definition/management.
*Model* - Reusable static models with full support for surfaces 
(triangles, quads, NURBS) and volumes. No scene definition/management or 
animation.

Leonard Daly




> Another relevant X3D profile for comparison is CADInterchange
>
> ========================================================================
> X3D Abstract Specification, Annex H CADInterchange profile
>
> H.1 General
>
> This annex defines the X3D components that comprise the CADInterchange 
> profile. This annex includes not only the nodes that shall be 
> supported but also which fields in the supported nodes may be ignored.
>
> This profile is targeted towards:
>
> * Distillation of computer-aided design (CAD) data to downstream 
> applications.
> * Appropriately supporting Geometry and Appearance capabilities data 
> for CAD.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> As ever, getting clear on goals and use cases can be very helpful.  
> Are there overlapping motivations for Interchange, CADInterchange, 
> glTF and model exchange?  If there is lots of common ground and the 
> differences are small, perhaps all should be converged in a new 
> profile for X3D v4.
>
>
> On 1/31/2018 9:40 AM, Don Brutzman wrote:
>> Interesting discussions.  Here are some additional profile 
>> possibilities to improve model interchange.
>>
>> Since profiles are intended to provide common shared needs, these 
>> design criteria are all good to consider and compare/contrast together.
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> 1. Background.  The architecture for X3D profile, component, level is 
>> defined to support diverse extensibility, with profiles intended to 
>> define a commonly used palette of capabilities that support common 
>> use cases for browser implementations and scene authors.  References:
>>
>> * X3D Abstract Specification, Concepts, 4.5 Components
>> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/concepts.html#Components 
>>
>> "An X3D component is a set of related functionality consisting of 
>> various X3D objects and services as described below."
>>
>> * X3D Abstract Specification, Concepts, 4.6 Profiles
>> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/concepts.html#Profiles 
>>
>> "A profile is a named collection of functionality and requirements 
>> that shall be supported in order for an implementation to conform to 
>> that profile."
>> and
>> "Each set of requirements is directed at supporting the needs of a 
>> particular constituency. Not all constituencies may be satisfied by 
>> the functionality represented by these profiles. Therefore, this part 
>> of ISO/IEC 19775 allows for defining additional profiles either 
>> through amendment to this part of this International Standard or by 
>> registration."
>>
>> * X3D for Web Authors, Brutzman and Daly, Chapter 1 Technical Overview
>> 2.5.3. Profile statements and 2.5.4. Component statements, pp. 12-15
>> http://x3dgraphics.com/examples/X3dForWebAuthors/Chapter01TechnicalOverview/Chapter01Technical_Overview.pdf 
>>
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> 2. As part of X3D version 4, which allows us considerable design 
>> leeway, we might consider updating the current Interchange and 
>> Interactive Profile design criteria.  The original criteria are not 
>> "wrong" per se, but they might well be improved to better match 
>> modern capabilities and practices.
>>
>> What is missing from these motivations?  Copied here:
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> X3D Abstract Specification, Annex B Interchange profile
>> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/interchange.html 
>>
>>
>> B.1 General
>>
>> This annex defines the X3D components that comprise the Interchange 
>> profile. This includes not only the nodes that shall be supported but 
>> also which fields in the supported nodes may be ignored.
>>
>> This profile is targeted towards:
>>
>> * Exchange of geometry and animations between authoring systems,
>> * Possible implementation in a low-footprint engine requiring no 
>> interaction (EXAMPLE  an applet or small browser plug-in),
>> * Addressing the limitations of software renders not capable of 
>> dealing with all details of the full X3D lighting model, and
>> * Allowing a broader range of implementations by eliminating some 
>> complexity of a complete X3D implementation.
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> X3D Abstract Specification, Annex C (normative) Interactive profile
>> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/interactive.html 
>>
>>
>> C.1 General
>>
>> This annex defines the X3D components that comprise the Interactive 
>> profile. This includes not only the nodes that shall be supported but 
>> also which fields in the supported nodes may be ignored.
>>
>> This profile is targeted towards:
>>
>> * implementing a lightweight playback engine that supports rich 
>> graphics and interactivity,
>> * possible implementation in a low-footprint engine requiring limited 
>> navigation and environmental sensor control (EXAMPLE  an applet or 
>> small browser plug-in), and
>> * allowing a broader range of implementations by eliminating some 
>> complexity of a complete X3D implementation.
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> 3. Also of interest is to consider glTF capabilities, and whether a 
>> corresponding X3D Profile for glTF 2 might be defined.
>>
>> [x3d-public] X3D and glTF Features Comparison
>> http://www.web3d.org/mailman/private/x3d-public_web3d.org/2017-December/008028.html 
>>
>>
>> glTF X3D Features Comparison (3 NOV 2017)
>> http://www.web3d.org/sites/default/files/page/X3D%20Version%204/glTfX3dFeaturesComparison.pdf 
>>
>>
>> Thanks everyone for considering all of these possibilities.  The 
>> potential for improving profiles is a real opportunity with X3D 
>> version 4.
>>
>> all the best, Don
>
>
> all the best, Don


-- 
*Leonard Daly*
3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
LA ACM SIGGRAPH Past Chair
President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20180212/f565d889/attachment-0001.html>