[x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D (Leonard Daly)

Sun Nov 20 09:47:29 PST 2016

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:26:08 -0800

> From: Leonard Daly <Leonard.Daly at realism.com>
> To: X3D Public <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Subject: [x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D
>
> Please read this all of the way through before commenting.
>
> There is lots of interest in providing for the display of 3D data in the
> browser. This includes both "flat" 3D (3D monoscopic displayed) and
> stereoscopic  displays (aka VR or immersive). Libraries such as X3DOM,
> Cobweb, THREE.js, and Babylon.js have pretty much addressed flat 3D.
>
> There are several active efforts to address the VR display. All of the
> work supports both flat & VR displays. Some of the efforts are
> procedural (e.g., WebVR, THREE, etc.) and others are declarative (e.g.,
> X3D, A-Frame).

> The larger community is beginning to realize the need for a single
> declarative means for handling the display, animation, and interaction
> of 3D content. Most of the community is not a member of the Consortium,
> and many are not familiar with X3D (in any form). There already is a
> proposed path that starts with A-Frame. The discussions as to what the
> declarative language will look like and how it will work will be
> extensive and probably contentious (at least at times). There are a lot
> of very large players (Google, especially) involved so it is important
> to resolve difficult issues first before people (and organizations)
> become too entrenched.
>

The two main insights for me coming out of the discussion after the web vr
workshop were that there is only consensus on adding intrinsic browser
support for vectors, quaternions, 4x4 matrices to support 3d graphics
outside of webgl but nothing much else. And that the scene graph idea is
considered too rigid and a failed experiment by some.

All of that was introduction to the main point: What do you (meaning the
> reader) think are the essential characteristics of X3D when running in
> an HTML page? I know that the answer is not everything because (1) as a
> standard, X3D does not run in the web page; (2) X3D supports multiple
> encodings, some of which are not HTML compatible (e.g., binary ones);
> (3) X3D has Profiles and Components and no browser supports all Profiles
> and Components. There are several other reasons that the answer is not
> everything, so that doesn't count.
>
> I can think of several things that are important. I'm not sure if these
> are essential, or how to quantify or better state them
>
> 1) long-lasting (read and display 20 year old stuff)
>

I think essential in the forward looking sense that new content should be
possible to display or convert after perhaps 10 years.

> 2) extensible
>

> Other items that might be important to people
> 3) modeling
> 4) feature-rich (at least in some areas)
> 5) platform-neutral
> 6) volume displays (not just surfaces)
>

for me all important, 3 and 6 not essential

7) built-in navigation

essential for ease of use

8) high fidelity simulation capable; defined, deterministic time model

not essential for me; probably essential for others due to (perceived?)
lack of alternatives.

9) self-documenting

meta nodes: important but not essential if other closely linked
documentation methods are available (comments)

I am looking for a collection of items that are so important to X3D that
> if removed, you would not have X3D, and when present you would recognize
> it as X3D or at least a close relative. I would expect the list to vary
> from person to person, but I also expect some characteristics to be
> present in many people's list. The items on your list are likely to
> reflect your personal interest and work with X3D and other 3D content.
>

-Andreas

--
> *Leonard Daly*
> 3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
> LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
> President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/
> attachments/20161118/8e3189e9/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:54:26 +0000
> From: doug sanden <highaspirations at hotmail.com>
> To: X3D Public <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D
> Message-ID:
>         <BN6PR14MB177827A4FAF2DFBEB907377DB6B30 at BN6PR14MB1778.
> namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> If it conforms to a formal x3d specification by the web3d consortium and
> the specification was developed through web3d formal processes, and
> registered as an iso standard, then its x3d.
> Otherwise its not.
> -Doug
> ...
> But that raises a few questions:
> Q1. what should all (growing list of) the derivatives / offshoots be
> called?
> Q2. should web3d specs be adapted to allow them to be called x3d?
> ...
> X3Daly, X3Dom, X3Doug - maybe 'derivatives' or 'offshoots' but not x3d
> spec conformant.
> ...
> Lets say hypothetically someone wants to write a new book. They anticipate
> the publisher will want something 'new, hot and here to stay'. A totally
> new version of X3D, authorized by web3d.org as their new standard,
> deprecating all their old standards, would be a great topic. Books would
> fly off the shelves.
> But what if the formal process of web3d was focused on keeping together a
> broad community of content authors and app developers. Incrementalism would
> work better than hot and new. And incrementalism might be too boring for a
> publisher.
>
> A few optional tactics we might see:
> a) someone might try to usurp/bypass the web3d process to have their
> derivative declared - by popular vote or trick leading legal questions -
> the new standard, or a valid x3d.
>
> However there are too many competing derivitives to declare a winner, and
> each derivative serves a good audience and needs to be there, and helps
> ensure a healthy 'big-tent web3d community' future by covering more
> technologies
>
> b) writing a book about what's really happening. "YAW3D - Yet Another
> Web3d Derivative - an insider look at the exploding field of realtime 3D
> graphics' and then an intro chapter showing a map of where it all started,
> and derivatives forming, a chapter on each derivative -maybe one on X3Doug-
> and a chapter on how to develop your own derivaive. And what's common:
> learn one and the rest are easy.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: x3d-public <x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> on behalf of Leonard Daly
> <Leonard.Daly at realism.com>
> Sent: November 18, 2016 8:26 PM
> To: X3D Public
> Subject: [x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D
>
> Please read this all of the way through before commenting.
>
> There is lots of interest in providing for the display of 3D data in the
> browser. This includes both "flat" 3D (3D monoscopic displayed) and
> stereoscopic  displays (aka VR or immersive). Libraries such as X3DOM,
> Cobweb, THREE.js, and Babylon.js have pretty much addressed flat 3D.
>
> There are several active efforts to address the VR display. All of the
> work supports both flat & VR displays. Some of the efforts are procedural
> (e.g., WebVR, THREE, etc.) and others are declarative (e.g., X3D, A-Frame).
>
> The larger community is beginning to realize the need for a single
> declarative means for handling the display, animation, and interaction of
> 3D content. Most of the community is not a member of the Consortium, and
> many are not familiar with X3D (in any form). There already is a proposed
> path that starts with A-Frame. The discussions as to what the declarative
> language will look like and how it will work will be extensive and probably
> contentious (at least at times). There are a lot of very large players
> (Google, especially) involved so it is important to resolve difficult
> issues first before people (and organizations) become too entrenched.
>
> All of that was introduction to the main point: What do you (meaning the
> reader) think are the essential characteristics of X3D when running in an
> HTML page? I know that the answer is not everything because (1) as a
> standard, X3D does not run in the web page; (2) X3D supports multiple
> encodings, some of which are not HTML compatible (e.g., binary ones); (3)
> X3D has Profiles and Components and no browser supports all Profiles and
> Components. There are several other reasons that the answer is not
> everything, so that doesn't count.
>
> I can think of several things that are important. I'm not sure if these
> are essential, or how to quantify or better state them
>
> 1) long-lasting (read and display 20 year old stuff)
> 2) extensible
>
> Other items that might be important to people
> 3) modeling
> 4) feature-rich (at least in some areas)
> 5) platform-neutral
> 6) volume displays (not just surfaces)
>
> I am looking for a collection of items that are so important to X3D that
> if removed, you would not have X3D, and when present you would recognize it
> as X3D or at least a close relative. I would expect the list to vary from
> person to person, but I also expect some characteristics to be present in
> many people's list. The items on your list are likely to reflect your
> personal interest and work with X3D and other 3D content.
>
> --
> Leonard Daly
> 3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
> LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
> President, Daly Realism - Creating the Future
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:15:29 +0100
> From: Yves Piguet <yves.piguet at gmail.com>
> To: doug sanden <highaspirations at hotmail.com>
> Cc: X3D Public <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D
> Message-ID: <62DD5A7D-CED4-4F30-A8DF-807A183C7FA0 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Fine. By applying this strictly, per http://www.web3d.org/
> documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/concepts.
> html#ProfilesOverview <http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/
> 19775-1/V3.3/Part01/concepts.html#ProfilesOverview> it's only a matter of
> registering new profiles, and writing files with the proper header and
> profile attribute or statement.
>
> Unfortunately per http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/
> 19775-1/V3.3/Part01/concepts.html#Componentprofilereg <
> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/
> 19775-1/V3.3/Part01/concepts.html#Componentprofilereg> the registration
> process is defined in ISO/IEC 9973, which costs 138 swiss francs for the
> standard itself. The effective registration costs, in term of work, time
> and money, is unknown. Hence the suggestion I made on Oct 13 2016 for
> reserved profile names available to everybody for custom extensions, in
> particular syntax extensions which cannot be emulated by externprotos or
> feature set reduction like in X3DOM.
>
> That also explains my reluctance to register as an X3D member, even for
> free, to not be bound by 60 pages of legal terms I'm not comfortable with <
> http://www.web3d.org/about/documents/legal <http://www.web3d.org/about/
> documents/legal>>.
>
> Yves
>
> > On 19 Nov 2016, at 14:54, doug sanden <highaspirations at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > If it conforms to a formal x3d specification by the web3d consortium and
> the specification was developed through web3d formal processes, and
> registered as an iso standard, then its x3d.
> > Otherwise its not.
> > -Doug
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/
> attachments/20161119/34a5d6ee/attachment.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 92, Issue 40
> ******************************************
>

-- 
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/20161120/674f054f/attachment-0001.html>