<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I am going to reply to this in pieces
with the subject identified in the subject. I don;t have time to
address this all at once.<br>
<br>
My concern is not with the name, but it's acronym. The Consortium
already has one that looks and sounds very close to your proposed
one. Confusion in the marketplace or eyes & ears of users is
never good. This is especially important since "X", "3", "O", and
"M" stand for the same words in both labels.<br>
<br>
My point with time-limited is the Consortium resources are time
limited. It cannot demand/request more time than its volunteers
are able or willing to provide. In this case having two separate
items with nearly the same name will require an education campaign
by the Consortium to make it clear to everyone that (1) there is a
difference, (2) the difference is important, and (3) what the
difference is. <br>
<br>
I have no issue if someone who is affiliated with the Consortium
wishes to develop a product (not necessarily something you hold or
pay for) that has a conflicting name AND that person takes on the
entire education effort separate and apart from the Consortium.
That person should say that [s]he is doing it for the Consortium
or use Consortium resources (mostly people). The Consortium needs
to decide where to invest their resources. <br>
<br>
<br>
Leonard Daly<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/20/2017 5:13 PM, Don Brutzman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f9a3c7f2-8714-81ce-e53b-78fcdabcd162@nps.edu">Thanks for
several good insights Leonard. I have responded to all your
points, many of which are contentious but familiar, so that a
balanced perspective is better reflected for everyone.
<br>
<br>
On 8/19/2017 7:11 PM, Leonard Daly wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Don et al,
<br>
<br>
I appreciate the construction of an object model for X3D as
laying a strong foundation for understanding the structure of
the existing standard and providing a path for future
evolutionary development of the standard.
<br>
<br>
I do have the following concerns:
<br>
1) The name is very close to an existing and well-known product
- X3DOM. In fact this name looks like a typo of that. Unless a
major education effort is made, there will be confusion when
people see just the name; beside the verbal use will sound like
"X3 dumb".
<br>
</blockquote>
Agreed that naming is important - for clarity and correctness and
communication. OM4X3D acronym is also a bit clumsy, but is not
incorrect.
<br>
<br>
The key recent insight is the unifying nature of the X3D object
model design. "Universal" was also a suggested term but that
seems much too encompassing, since there are many many approaches
to 3D graphics - we never want to overstate.
<br>
<br>
X3DOM is wonderful and no education effort is needed regarding
that, whatever new term gets used simply needs to be different.
<br>
<br>
It is always worth considering whether better phrasing and better
acronyms are possible. Thanks for doing that.
<br>
<br>
Success metric: you know you have chosen the right name when no
one questions that name any more...
<br>
<br>
So far "X3D Unified Object Model" seems clearest, reasonably
accurate, and least worst of several candidates.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Since the Consortium is very
resource-limited, I suggest the (significantly less) effort be
put into developing a new and non-conflicting name.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I must continue to respond and disagree, this is not really an
accurate point. Strictly speaking, the Consortium is not resource
limited since X3D version 4 activities are not directed by "top
down" funding and not directly applying any labor resources to any
of these development efforts. There is not a resource choice or
labor decision being made by funding administrators, as in a
company or agency. Rather: individuals and teams working towards
compatible capabilities and consensus, in X3D Working Group and in
larger community, is what drives all this work.
<br>
<br>
I don't plan on asking anyone to put "significantly less" effort
into anything. Many opportunities for X3D on the Web exist now,
we should accelerate.
<br>
<br>
Wisdom of the group is essential. Reviewing design and
implementation progress on the mailing list is how we have
progressed for the past 23 years. Archived mailing list dialog is
central to our decades of sustained success. People sharing ideas
is not something to avoid, rather sharing ideas is a fundamental
benefit of participation.
<br>
<br>
The unified object model discussion shows how this progress helps
advance all X3D future versions. So there is no conflict of
interest.
<br>
<br>
Can further member resources and commitments help? Of course.
Web3D working groups all remain ready for further activity and
growth.
<br>
<br>
*Our community and our consortium are only limited by our desire
and abilities to make progress together.*
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<font class="tahoma,arial,helvetica san serif" color="#333366">
<font size="+1"><b>Leonard Daly</b></font><br>
3D Systems & Cloud Consultant<br>
LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair<br>
President, Daly Realism - <i>Creating the Future</i>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>