[x3d-public] ] V4.0 Opendiscussion/workshopon X3DHTML integration

[Joe D Williams]

Hi, Philipp,

> https://xml3d.github.io/xml3d-examples/examples/xflowSkin/xflow-skin.html 
> for
> simple skinned and animated characters

I don't see it. There are things jumping around, but from code think 
not skeletons with skin but just geometries dragged from frame to 
frame. Maybe the code is in the protos? Looks like it could be 
generated by something that used skeletal animation but just exported 
geometry for some keyframes. Anyway, I can't find the desired 
interfaces, like how is the skeleton composed, how is the skin bound, 
how do I control the animations, do my personal animations stand a 
chance of working in those rigs? All the questions I consider basic 
are not there or very far down in the reading. So show me the code for 
a skeleton, please,

>From the spec, It is important that the skeleton be well defined in 
terms of names, locations, and interfaces. To me, the great thing 
about the x3d representation is clarity about the naming and location 
of features, and even an initial pose so that animations can be easily 
transported between characters.

> Hanim has
> selected one specific way of describing and handling animation and
> skinning, which requires a node-specific implementation.

Right, hanim documented the best practices for handling skeleton, and 
animation, and skinning, I mean for years x3d does it the same way 
because these are the parameters for the way that everybody does it.

So, it started long ago with the idea that researchers needed a 
standardized skeleton that would serve for producing a computable 
replacement for a mechanical armature in humanoid simulations. With 
medical and robotic folks also involved, they decided to pick a 
realistic representation that was widely accepted. The hanim and X3D 
standards use as the example a 'standard' humanoid with 'typical' 
dimensions in a realistic humanoid hierarchy, This was easy for VRML 
and X3D with a Humanoid container holding skeleton and skin and some 
other stuffs.

Skeleton is realistic hierarchy of Joints, Segments, and Sites. 
Defining the default initial pose was not easy but finally, the choice 
was probably an artifact of the method used to obtain the greatast 
share of samples to define typical joint and surface feature 
locations. Anyway, some of the names have changed (segment instead of 
bone) and some under the covers stuffs exposed, but basically x3d 
hanim is indusry-standard best practices for complete documentation of 
a realtime animated character.

Later this has evolved for skeleton structures to serve as the basic 
model for motion capture data and as the corresponding structure for 
the mocap playback model.

I mean, this hanim has been the world standard for transportablity of 
basic structures and basic functionality. Wouldn't you expect to get 
something that represents the core factors for what most all realtime 
character animation tools would give you when you start with any 
default (fantasitc that there are now so many) humanoid or biped or 
something of that category? Of course, and that is true. See X3D HAnim 
LOA2. Some names are changed, but that is the generic skeleton.

The names may be changed or some hidden interfaces exposed, but if you 
look close you will see that x3d hanim does indeed represent complete 
documentation required to build and animate the character. That can be 
important when you wish to carry your work from one commercial or open 
product to another. I mean you used to have to beg for binding and 
animation curves. At some authoring levels sometimes you can't even 
see that stuff.

Whatever the authoring system internal data forms, if they rig skin, 
then there may or may not be a human readable and kestroke editable 
listing of the skin vertex bindings and weights. X3D just says that 
this very basic stuff has to be in the flie in a logical place and 
reasonable form. Any authoring system worthy of your trust should be 
able to give you that list just in case you wanted to work with 
another tool and use your old rigging. Why is it so carefully defined 
in x3d hanim? Because that is the best way to preserve that type of 
data since basically, everybody has to do it that way down at the 
metal, to move the points ro positions that depend upon what time 
appears in the next frame.

That's just way it is. The basic data in close to executable form 
readable and editable is what x3d hanim requires. Since it is so 
basic, data should be able to be exchanged between most any set of 
authoring tools and it is. Of course there might be some new 
technique(s) because the things advance, but those techniques either 
remain proprietary of have not yet made it into the public open source 
community so would ot appear in X3D.

No outright challenge here but look at what you get when you start 
with the default humanoid in any authoring system. Some might hook up 
the joints slightly differently with other names or use some other 
space than 'standard' hanim humanoid space but the basic goal is 
realism, Hey, I think best results when everything is drawn in 
'standard' human space, dimensioned for your preferences. Like the 
hanim end-effector surface features are there because experimeters 
wanted to be able to define an actual location in human space relative 
to the skeleton. That was where the virtual doctor could touch the 
virtual surgical tool. Anyway, by the time the standard was set, it 
was pretty much decided that real machines would use quats to anmate 
but X3D stayed with axis-angle as the minimum requirement for 
transporting realtime animations (realtime always needs interpolators 
and all inbetweens, so sorry euler angles).

A Transform extended to a Joint adds some technical features and the 
hierarchal structure of Joint, connecting Segment, and Site(s) for 
surface and internal features are all standard vrml/x3d. Using the 
names Humanoid. Joint, Segment, and Site as names for the major 
functionalities of the basic humanoid with geometries bound to 
segments is accomplished by extending Transform using simple 
prototypes. To do the skin needs some pretty standard gem script to 
move the skin points as the skeleton is animated .

I mean that all the information about mesh and binding and what is 
supposed to happen when it is supposed to happen is very nicely 
composed. Of course x3d hanim is always interested in new names and 
locations and styles or techniques that are missing from anywhere in 
x3d, but basically it is all there. This reflects the data that is 
actually used to create the character and realtime animations in 
human-readable form. And it matches up with detailed vizualization 
technolofies like medical and cad and physics and is completely 
collada friendly.

As I said, the example I am interested in exploring is relatively 
simple and from what I have seen (with conversion from axis-angle to 
unitquats) can probably be represented lossless in glTF.

> But this generic data design also allows for creating these
> abstractions that would be much harder (if not impossible) to do 
> with
> the specialized approach that X3D is based on.

X3D is a generic data design because it defines generic forms of data 
needed to make and animate a common character. The data is indeed 
generic and no character animation that can produce animated 
characters is missing any of this data. Absent proprietary technology 
they all use a skeleton and they all have geometry bound to connecting 
things, and they all use the same skin bindings.

What is specialized? The names and hierarchy? Well the names are 
probably specialized but the hierarchy and bindings are not. If i read 
the above right, then _if_ the generic data design has hard times with 
the x3d approach of containing the data then the generic data design 
has big problems. I don't think that is what you said, but what part 
of the x3d data design is harder? Overall, the hanim is a very generic 
data design using very generic 3D hierarchies. Hanim is not at all an 
unusual or non-generic scenegraph structure or data structure so I 
don't understand the problem.

Besides, please look at some browsers that do a great job with x3d 
hanim. There were several more before they went missing.

http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/JoeH-AnimKick1a.txt

is the text version of the example I am most interested in, in classic 
encoding because I thinki is easier to read. Don't use word wrap.

In reality, I don't care how the data is stored for runtime execution, 
I care about the readability of the documentation created at 
authortime. Sure, X3D HAnim may take a while to learn to read because 
the structure is complicated, but all time is not wasted because these 
are types of data common to most all efforts of humanoid animation.

One piece of automation also used in character animation is precise, 
time-driven animation of parts of a geometry, like when a piece of 
skin to move independently of any joint rotations, In HAnim this is 
done by Displacer, You tell it which points to move and how much to 
move them then send it a weight, This is an important little tool. 
Again, the data and technique just represents a common way to do it. 
How would your project define such as operation?

Thanks and Best,
Joe


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Philipp Slusallek" <philipp.slusallek at dfki.de>
To: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>; "doug sanden" 
<highaspirations at hotmail.com>; "'X3D Graphics public mailing list'" 
<x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public]] V4.0 Opendiscussion/workshopon X3DHTML 
integration


> Hi Joe,
>
> I believe it may even be illuminating to just read a paper to 
> understand
> the principles of other technologies and consider them for your own
> design. Also, some more openness to other available technology 
> besides
> X3D would actually help the discussion here.
>
> But we actually do have an implementation as well, which is used in 
> many
> of our projects: See for example
> https://xml3d.github.io/xml3d-examples/examples/xflowSkin/xflow-skin.html 
> for
> simple skinned and animated characters that are handled using Xflow 
> to
> describe the required processing on the triangle meshes. These are
> animated characters exported to XML3D/Xflow directly from a 
> well-known game.
>
> This is just one of many ways of how Xflow can be used. Really, the 
> main
> point of Xflow is the ability to describe very different processing
> operations on various data sets in a scene in a declarative way. 
> There
> are also examples for image processing (e.g.
> https://xml3d.github.io/xml3d-examples/examples/xflowIP/histogramm.html), 
> simple
> Augmented Reality
> (https://xml3d.github.io/xml3d-examples/examples/xflowAR/ar_flying_teapot.html),
> and others using the exact same basic technique. Our ongoing work 
> will
> make this even simpler and support different HW mappings better.
>
> This is made possible by the generic data model in XML3D that I have
> alluded to several times in my email. It is already useful as nice
> abstraction of GPU buffers but also allows for supporting 
> programmable
> shading. But this generic data design also allows for creating these
> abstractions that would be much harder (if not impossible) to do 
> with
> the specialized approach that X3D is based on. However, it does work 
> the
> other way round: You can map the specialized nodes of X3D to the 
> more
> general and generic functionality of XML3D/Xflow.
>
> I think this highlights the difference between our approaches: Hanim 
> has
> selected one specific way of describing and handling animation and
> skinning, which requires a node-specific implementation. On the 
> other
> hand, we provide a small core engine for any such processing and 
> expose
> it in a compact and declarative way. The engine can then analyze and
> optimize the resulting flow-graph, optimize it, and map it to the
> available HW independent of what the specific computation and up
> representing. On top of this, one can then use WebComponents to map 
> any
> specific representation (such as Hanim) to this generic 
> representation.
>
> We also did a careful analysis and comparison to X3D/Hanim in our 
> papers
> (see below for the links). There are several issues that we 
> identify:
> Need to duplicate the geometry to apply different animations to the 
> same
> model, or the fact that Hanim cannot handle tangent vectors as part 
> of
> the model, which may be required if a model has anisotropic 
> materials
> that need the transformed tangent vectors as vertex attributes for 
> the
> shader. It is very straight forward to add such processing to an 
> Xflow
> graph. There are more arguments in the paper.
>
> We also argue in the paper that Xflow is expressive enough to handle
> Hanim. Doing a full WebComponent implementation for Hanim is left as 
> an
> exercise for the reader :-). While certainly useful, we do not see 
> this
> as the main target of our research work, sorry. But it should not be 
> a
> difficult exercise.
>
> BTW, the relevant papers are here:
> --
> https://graphics.cg.uni-saarland.de/fileadmin/cguds/papers/2012/klein_web3d2012/xflow.pdf
> --
> https://graphics.cg.uni-saarland.de/fileadmin/cguds/papers/2013/klein_web3d2013/xflow-ar.pdf
>
> There is also a IEEE CG&A extended version of the first paper here:
> -- https://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/cg/2013/05/mcg2013050038.pdf
>
>
> Best,
>
> Philipp
>
> Am 12.06.2016 um 05:52 schrieb Joe D Williams:
>> Hi Philipp,
>>
>> I would study some of your work, but please help me esablish this
>> confidence by showing me what you can do with some relatively 
>> complex
>> X3D. This is skeleton animation of joints and segments as used
>> everywhere (no matter which interfaces are actually exposed by the
>> authoring system) and a deformable mesh skin bound to the skeleton 
>> and
>> each skin vertex bound to one or more joint(s) nodes.
>>
>> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19774/V1.0/HAnim/ObjectInterfaces.html
>>
>>
>> Skin animation is achieved by animating the joints in the 
>> skeleton's
>> joint hierarachy then weighting each skin vertex displacement 
>> according
>> to the bound joint(s) rotation (as used everywhere no matter which
>> interfaces are actually exposed by the authoring system).
>>
>> some basics are here:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_animation
>>
>> is pretty much what X3D does either/both segment geometry (none on 
>> this
>> model) or skin, like this one, and represents complete 
>> documentation of
>> the model rigging and animations. Relative to the rest of the world 
>> of
>> character authoring and animation X3D covers a lot of ground. The 
>> only
>> 'probem' I know X3D has is that we do not use quaterions for joint
>> animation, which is now more or less industry glTF standard instead 
>> of
>> axis-angle used here. Well, also see that while the interpolators 
>> are
>> linear, the keytimes may not always be constant intervals.
>>
>> A couple of X3D browsers will do this fine and BSContact free is my
>> reference.
>>
>> This is a 'standard' LOA3 skeleton with skin vertices mostly taken 
>> from
>> 'standard' surface feature points. Both skeleton and skin are drawn 
>> in
>> approximately human scale, using the spec example dimensions as a 
>> basis.
>> I use an IndexedFaceSet for the skin mesh and depend upon the 
>> 'standard'
>> X3D browser feature of IFS to generate a default texure map so the
>> texture stays bound to the skin as it moves.
>>
>> Anyway, I hope you can take a look at this because implementation 
>> of
>> this basic character animation stuff is really not that easy and in 
>> the
>> past we have seen X3D browser development stall at implementation 
>> of
>> skeleton based skin animation. Note the hanim displacer node also 
>> does
>> mesh deformation.
>>
>> Example is here:
>>
>> http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/JoeH-AnimKick1a.x3dv
>>
>> and attached.
>>
>> I can get it in .x3d but this version has better documentation of 
>> the
>> skin-joint bindings.
>>
>> Thanks and Best,
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philipp Slusallek"
>> <philipp.slusallek at dfki.de>
>> To: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>; "doug sanden"
>> <highaspirations at hotmail.com>; "'X3D Graphics public mailing list'"
>> <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 3:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] [x3d] V4.0 Opendiscussion/workshopon 
>> X3DHTML
>> integration
>>
>>
>>> Hi Joe,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the good discussion.
>>>
>>> But may I humbly suggest that you read our Xflow papers. We have 
>>> looked
>>> at this problem very carefully and tried different options with 
>>> Xflow as
>>> the result of this. Xflow describes a generic data modeling and
>>> processing framework as a direct extension to HTML. It is even
>>> independent of XML3D conceptually. I would even call it the most
>>> important parts of our system.
>>>
>>> Its data representation is very close to GPU buffers (by design) 
>>> and we
>>> have shown that it can be mapped efficiently to very different
>>> acceleration API (including plain JS, asm.js, ParallelJS, vertex
>>> shaders, and others).The reason is that it is a pure functional 
>>> design
>>> that is hard to do with X3D Routes for various reasons (discussed 
>>> in the
>>> papers).
>>>
>>> Morphing, skinning, and image processing were actually the first
>>> examples that we showed how to do with the system. Hanim can be 
>>> easily
>>> mapped to Xflow (e.g. by a WebComponent), from where it can take
>>> advantage of the generic HW acceleration without any further 
>>> coding. All
>>> that is left on the JS side is a bit of bookkeeping, attribute 
>>> updates,
>>> and the WebGL calls.
>>>
>>>
>>> And with regard to the need of native implementations as raised by 
>>> you
>>> earlier: On a plain PC we could do something like 40-50 (would 
>>> have to
>>> check the exact number) fairly detailed animated characters, each 
>>> with
>>> their own morphing and skinning in a single scene in pure JS, even
>>> WITHOUT ANY ACCELERATION AT ALL, including rendering and all other
>>> stuff. Yes, faster and more efficient is always better, but (i) we
>>> should not do any premature optimizations unless we can show that 
>>> it
>>> would actually make a big difference and (ii) this will not be 
>>> easy as
>>> you should not underestimate the performance of JS with really 
>>> good JIT
>>> compiler and well-formed code.
>>>
>>> Unless we have SHOWN that there is a real problem, that JS CANNOT 
>>> be
>>> pushed further AND there is sufficient significant interest by a 
>>> large
>>> user base, the browser vendors will not even talk to us about a 
>>> native
>>> implementation. And maintaining a fork is really, really hard --  
>>> trust
>>> me that is where we started :-(.
>>>
>>> And even more importantly, when we should ever get there we should
>>> better have an implementation core that is as small as possible. 
>>> Many
>>> node types each with its own implementation is not the right 
>>> design for
>>> that (IMHO). Something like Xflow that many nodes and routes could 
>>> be
>>> mapped to seems, a much more useful and maintainable option.
>>>
>>>
>>> Right now we are extending shade.js in a project with Intel to 
>>> also
>>> handle the Xflow processing algorithms to be more general, which 
>>> should
>>> allow us to have a single code that targets all possible 
>>> acceleration
>>> targets. Right now you still need separate implementations for 
>>> each
>>> target.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Philipp
>>>
>>> Am 10.06.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Joe D Williams:
>>>>> e6 html integration > route/event/timer
>>>>
>>>> These are details solved declaratively using .x3d using the 
>>>> abstractions
>>>> of node event in and outs, timesensors, routes, interpolators, 
>>>> shaders,
>>>> and Script directOuts...
>>>>
>>>> in the <x3d> ... </x3d> environment, everything hat is not 
>>>> 'built-in' is
>>>> created programatically using 'built-in' event emitters, event
>>>> listeners, event processors, time devices, scripts, etc.
>>>>
>>>> So the big difference in event systems might be that in .html the 
>>>> time
>>>> answers what time was it in the world when you last checked the 
>>>> time,
>>>> while in ,x3d it is the time to use in creation of the next 
>>>> frame. So
>>>> this declarative vs programatic just sets a low limit on how much
>>>> animation automation ought to be included. Both .x3d and <x3d> 
>>>> ,,,
>>>> </x3d> should preserve the basic event graph declarations.
>>>>
>>>> This brings up where to stash these organizable lists of routes 
>>>> and
>>>> interpolators.
>>>> The user code of .html is not really designed for these detailed
>>>> constructions and its basic premise is that the document should 
>>>> contain
>>>> content, not massses of markup. So, are timers and interpolators 
>>>> and
>>>> routes as used in .x3d content or markup? If they are markup, 
>>>> then it is
>>>> clear they should be in style. Besides, in my trusty text editor 
>>>> this
>>>> gives me a easily read independent event graph to play with.
>>>>
>>>> Next, if I need to step outside the 'built-in' convenience 
>>>> abstractions,
>>>> or simply to communicate with other players in the DOM which 
>>>> happens to
>>>> be the current embeddiment of my <x3d> ,,, </x3d> then I need DOM 
>>>> event
>>>> stuffs and probably a DOM script to deal with DOM events set on 
>>>> x3d
>>>> syntax.
>>>>
>>>> So, to me this is the first step: Decide how much of the 
>>>> automation is
>>>> actually included within <x3d> ... </x3d>?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe one example is x3d hanim where we define real skin vertices 
>>>> bound
>>>> to real joints to achieve realistic deformable skin. In HAnim the 
>>>> first
>>>> level of animation complexity is a realistic skeleton of joints 
>>>> with
>>>> simple binding of shapes to segments in a heirarchy where joint 
>>>> center
>>>> rotations can produce realitic movements of the skeleton. As a 
>>>> joint
>>>> center rotates then its children segments and joints move as 
>>>> expected
>>>> for the skeleton dynamics. For seamless animations across segment
>>>> shapes, then the technique is to bind each skin vertex to one or 
>>>> more
>>>> joint objects, then move the skin some weighted displacement as 
>>>> the
>>>> joint(s) center(s) rotates.
>>>>
>>>> To document this completely in human-readable and editable form, 
>>>> as is
>>>> the goal of .x3d HAnim, is very tedious, but that is exactly how 
>>>> it is
>>>> actually finally computed in the wide world of rigging and in
>>>> computationally intensive. Thus, it makes sense for <x3d> ... 
>>>> </x3d> to
>>>> support shapes bound to segments that are children of joints but 
>>>> not
>>>> demand full support for deformable skin. Hopefully the javascript
>>>> programmers that are now building the basic foundations to 
>>>> support x3d
>>>> using webgl features will prove me wrong, but without very high
>>>> performance support for reasonable density deformable skin, this 
>>>> does
>>>> not need to be supported in the (2.) html environment. Of course
>>>> standalone and embeddable players can do this because they will 
>>>> have
>>>> access to the high performance code and acceleration that may not 
>>>> be
>>>> available in .html with webgl.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for thinking about this stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/hanimLOA3A8320130611Allanimtests.x3dv
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/hanimLOA3A8320130611Allanimtests.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/JoeH-AnimKick1a.x3dv
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "doug sanden"
>>>> <highaspirations at hotmail.com>
>>>> To: "'X3D Graphics public mailing list'" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:03 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] [x3d] V4.0 Opendiscussion/workshopon 
>>>> X3DHTML
>>>> integration
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3-step 'Creative Strategy'
>>>> http://cup.columbia.edu/book/creative-strategy/9780231160520
>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/airdrieinnovationinstitute/creative-strategy
>>>>
>>>> 1. break it down (into problem elements)
>>>> 2. search (other domains for element solutions)
>>>> 3. recombine (element solutions into total solution)
>>>>
>>>> e - problem element
>>>> d - domain offering solution(s) to problem elements
>>>> e-d matrix
>>>> ______d1________d2______d3__________d4
>>>> e1
>>>> e2
>>>> e3
>>>> e4
>>>>
>>>> Applied to what I think is the overall problem: 'which v4
>>>> technologies/specifications' or 'gaining consensus on v4 before
>>>> siggraph'.
>>>> I don't know if that's the only problem or _the_ problem, so this 
>>>> will
>>>> be more of an exercise to see if Creative Strategy works in the 
>>>> real
>>>> world, by using what I can piece together from what your're 
>>>> saying as an
>>>> example.
>>>> Then I'll leave it to you guys to go through the 3 steps for 
>>>> whatever
>>>> the true problems are.
>>>> Problem: v4 specification finalization
>>>> Step1 break it down:
>>>> e1 continuity/stability in changing/shifting and multiplying 
>>>> target
>>>> technologies
>>>> e2 html integration > protos
>>>> e3 html integration > proto scripts
>>>> e4 html integration > inline vs Dom
>>>> e5 html integration > node/component simplification
>>>> e6 html integration > route/event/timer
>>>> e7 html integration > feature simplification ie SAI
>>>> e8 siggraph promotion opportunity, among/against competing 3D 
>>>> formats /
>>>> tools
>>>>
>>>> Step 2 search other domains
>>>> d1 compiler domain > take a high-level cross platform language 
>>>> and
>>>> compile it for target CPU ARM, x86, x64
>>>> d2 wrangling: opengl extension wrangler domain > add extensions 
>>>> to 15
>>>> year old opengl32.dll to make it modern opengl
>>>> d3 polyfill: web browser technologies > polyfill - program 
>>>> against an
>>>> assumed modern browser, and use polyfill.js to discover current 
>>>> browser
>>>> capaiblities and fill in any gaps by emulating
>>>> d4 unrolling: mangled-name copies pasted into same scope - don't 
>>>> know
>>>> what domain its from, but what John is doing when 
>>>> proto-expanding, its
>>>> like what freewrl did for 10 years for protos
>>>> d5 adware / iframe / webcomponents > separate scopes
>>>> -
>>>> https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/07/14/bringing-componentization-to-the-web-an-overview-of-web-components/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> http://www.benfarrell.com/2015/10/26/es6-web-components-part-1-a-man-without-a-framework/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - React, dojo, polymer, angular, es6, webcomponents.js polyfill, 
>>>> shadoow
>>>> dom,import, same-origin iframe
>>>>
>>>> d6 server > when a client wants something, and says what its
>>>> capabilities are, then serve them what they are capable of 
>>>> displaying
>>>> d7 viral videos
>>>>
>>>> (its hard to do a table in turtle graphics, so I'll do e/d lists)
>>>> e1 / d1 compiler: have one high level format which is technology
>>>> agnostic, with LTS long term stablility, and compile/translate to 
>>>> all
>>>> other formats which are more technology dependent. Need to 
>>>> show/prove
>>>> the high level can be transformed/ is transformable to all 
>>>> desired
>>>> targets like html Dom variants, html Inline variants, and desktop
>>>> variants
>>>> e4 / d1 including compiling to inline or dom variants
>>>> e1 / d6 server-time transformation or selection: gets client
>>>> capabilities in request, and either
>>>> - a) transforms a generic format to target capabilities variant 
>>>> or
>>>> - b) selects from among prepared variants to match target 
>>>> capaibilties,
>>>> e5 / d1 compiler: can compile static geometry from high level
>>>> nurbs/extrusions to indexedfaceset depending on target 
>>>> capabilities,
>>>> need to have a STATIC keyword in case extrusion is animated?
>>>> e6 / d1 compiler transforms routes, timers, events to target 
>>>> platform
>>>> equivalents
>>>>
>>>> e5 / d2 extension wrangling > depending on capaiblities of 
>>>> target,
>>>> during transform stage, substitute Protos for high level nodes, 
>>>> when
>>>> target browser can't support the component/level directly
>>>> e5 / d3 polyfill > when a target doesn't support some feature, 
>>>> polyfill
>>>> so it runs enough to support a stable format
>>>>
>>>> e8 / d7 create viral video of web3d consortium 
>>>> deciding/trying-to-decide
>>>> something. Maybe creative strategy step 3: decide among matrix 
>>>> elements
>>>> at a session at siggraph with audience watching or participating 
>>>> in
>>>> special "help us decide" siggraph session.
>>>>
>>>> e2 / d5 webcomponents and proto scripts: create scripts with/in
>>>> different webcomponent scope;
>>>> e3 / d5 webcomponents make Scene and ProtoInstance both in a
>>>> webcomponent, with hierarchy of webcomponents for nested 
>>>> protoInstances.
>>>> e2+e3 / d4 unrolling + protos > unroll protos and scripts a) 
>>>> upstream/on
>>>> server or transformer b) in client on demand
>>>>
>>>> e7 / d6 server simplifies featuers ie SAI or not based on client
>>>> capabilities
>>>> e7 / d1 compiler compiles out features not supported by target 
>>>> client
>>>>
>>>> ____d1___d2___d3___d4___d5___d6___d7
>>>> e1 __ * _______________________ *
>>>> e2 _________________ *___*
>>>> e3 _________________ *___*
>>>> e4 _*
>>>> e5 _*_____*____*
>>>> e6 _*
>>>> e7 _*_________________________*
>>>> e8 ________________________________*
>>>>
>>>> Or something like that,
>>>> But would Step 3 creatively recombine element solutions into 
>>>> total
>>>> solution still result in deadlock? Or can that deadlock be one of 
>>>> the
>>>> problem elements, and domain solutions applied? For example does 
>>>> the
>>>> compiler/transformer workflow idea automatically solve current 
>>>> deadlock,
>>>> or does deadlock need more specific attention ie breakdown into 
>>>> elements
>>>> of deadlock, searching domains for solutions to deadlock elements 
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>>> -Doug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> x3d-public mailing list
>>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> x3d-public mailing list
>>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) GmbH
>>> Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
>>>
>>> Geschäftsführung:
>>>  Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
>>>  Dr. Walter Olthoff
>>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>>>  Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>>>
>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313)
>>> VAT/USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148 646 973, Steuernummer:  19/673/0060/3
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>
> -- 
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) GmbH
> Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
>
> Geschäftsführung:
>  Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
>  Dr. Walter Olthoff
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>  Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313)
> VAT/USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148 646 973, Steuernummer:  19/673/0060/3
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>