[x3d-public] GeoPositionInterpolator revision for V4.0

Tue May 3 11:57:39 PDT 2016

Hi,

If you don’t have consensus yet, then simply raise a Mantis issue, and copy in the appropriate content. Then it can be discussed by the Geospatial WG to achieve consensus. Once you have consensus on the Geospatial WG then a pull request for 19775-1 V4.0 WD1 would be a good procedure. Then the X3D WG will give it the once over, and, assuming no issues, I will merge it.

We still have documentation to write for the ‘proper’ procedures. This also needs to include some editing styles info.

When you make changes for a PR, can you please edit as follows:

1)      If you want to delete any existing text, don’t. Instead leave it there and use the <span class=”proposedDeletion”> style around all the text to be deleted. This will highlight it in yellow, and also apply a strikeout.

2)      If you want to add new text, use the <span class=”proposed”> style around all the new text. This will highlight it in yellow.

Once the X3D WG has also approved it, then we change the class styles to “approvedDeletion” and “approved” respectively, which changes the highlight to green.

This makes it easy to see what has changed from the last version. You will see some examples already exist.

There are some additional styles, for editor’s comments, for example, that we can use to add a temporary reference, e.g. a link to public discussions or a Mantis issue.

Great work catching all this, guys.

Roy

From: x3d-public [mailto:x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Plesch
Sent: 03 May 2016 19:38
To: Mike McCann
Cc: X3D Graphics public mailing list
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] GeoPositionInterpolator revision for V4.0

We definitely should if a github PR or straight commit would be the proper procedure. I am not quite sure that it is. In any case, there is a consensus and a quorum IMO.

-Andreas

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Mike McCann <mccann at mbari.org> wrote:

Should we take these proposed changes to github.

I'm concerned that they'll get "lost" in email.

-Mike

On Apr 28, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Doug and Mike.

I may add that it looks like that cobweb will offer great circle interpolation (among other geospatial capabilities) in a future release.

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:59:54 -0700
From: Mike McCann <mccann at mbari.org>

This seems like a good alternative. Let me propose a prose change for http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/components/geodata.html#GeoPositionInterpolator:

The GeoPositionInterpolator node provides an interpolator capability where key values are specified in geographic coordinates and the interpolation is performed within the specified spatial reference frame.

becomes:

The GeoPositionInterpolator node provides an interpolator capability where key values are specified in geographic coordinates and the interpolation is performed within the specified spatial reference frame. Great circle interpolation is recommended, future specifications will require great circle interpolation.

Thanks, good prose. It may be help to explain a bit what great circle interpolation is about. Something like:

Interpolation along a great circle route is recommended[ for reproducibility between spatial reference frames][? and browser implementations?]. Future specification will require such great circle interpolation.

The new sentence for version 4 of the spec. could be:

Interpolated values are required to follow a great circle.

Nice. Perhaps add route as in great circle route ?

Should there be a hint for a recommended algorithm as well ? I am thinking about SLERP since it works very well and efficiently between key values after being converted to geocentric vectors.

-Andreas

-Mike

On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:14 AM, doug sanden <highaspirations at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Andreas,
>
>> Alternatively, rather than introducing a new field it may suffice to
>> simply clarify in the appropriate spec. section that by default great
>> circle interpolation is recommended for consistency across geoSystems
>> and across browsers. This could be a recommendation  and not a
>> requirement but possibly with a qualifier that future spec. revisions
>> will actually require great circle interpolation.
>
> Sounds good.
> -Doug
> BSc Surveying Engineering
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20160428/3daede19/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
x3d-public mailing list
x3d-public at web3d.org
http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org

------------------------------

End of x3d-public Digest, Vol 85, Issue 56
******************************************

-- 

Andreas Plesch
39 Barbara Rd.
Waltham, MA 02453

_______________________________________________
x3d-public mailing list
x3d-public at web3d.org
http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org

-- 

Andreas Plesch
39 Barbara Rd.
Waltham, MA 02453

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20160503/57b4290d/attachment.html>