[x3d-public] motivations and potential renaming of OM4X3D as X3D Unified Object Model (X3DUOM)

[Leonard Daly]

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.

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.

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.

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.


Leonard Daly


On 8/20/2017 5:13 PM, Don Brutzman wrote:
> 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.
>
> On 8/19/2017 7:11 PM, Leonard Daly wrote:
>> Don et al,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I do have the following concerns:
>> 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".
> Agreed that naming is important - for clarity and correctness and 
> communication.  OM4X3D acronym is also a bit clumsy, but is not 
> incorrect.
>
> 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.
>
> X3DOM is wonderful and no education effort is needed regarding that, 
> whatever new term gets used simply needs to be different.
>
> It is always worth considering whether better phrasing and better 
> acronyms are possible.  Thanks for doing that.
>
> Success metric: you know you have chosen the right name when no one 
> questions that name any more...
>
> So far "X3D Unified Object Model" seems clearest, reasonably accurate, 
> and least worst of several candidates.
>
>> Since the Consortium is very resource-limited, I suggest the 
>> (significantly less) effort be put into developing a new and 
>> non-conflicting name.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The unified object model discussion shows how this progress helps 
> advance all X3D future versions.  So there is no conflict of interest.
>
> Can further member resources and commitments help?  Of course. Web3D 
> working groups all remain ready for further activity and growth.
>
> *Our community and our consortium are only limited by our desire and 
> abilities to make progress together.*
>

-- 
*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/20170822/8a7045b6/attachment.html>