[x3d-public] X3D Working Group meeting 23 SEP 2022: X3D Application Stack Layers Alternatives diagram refinement

Sat Sep 24 11:25:47 PDT 2022

Personally, I think we’re all trying to figure out how X3D fits into the
Metaverse, which was why i was trying to come up with things we might want
to do in the Metaverse, and what might appear in the Metaverse.

For me, i may want to show the X3D standard in the Metaverse.

John

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 1:16 PM Christoph Valentin <
christoph.valentin at gmx.at> wrote:

> Hi all together,
>
> May I ask one question?
>
> What is the purpose of the diagram?
>
> I understood the diagram as a help for decision, if someone likes to
> implement an "X3D Application" and wants to know, which kind of expertise
> they will need.
>
> True?
>
> Kr,
> CP/V
>
> P.S.: on the other hand, the diagram I suggested earlier this week, was
> just a "rough overview for starters", about how X3D fits into any computer
> system.
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 24. September 2022 um 20:05 Uhr
> *Von:* "John Carlson" <yottzumm at gmail.com>
> *An:* "Brutzman, Donald (Don) (CIV)" <brutzman at nps.edu>
> *Cc:* "X3D Public Mailing List (x3d-public at web3d.org)" <
> x3d-public at web3d.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [x3d-public] X3D Working Group meeting 23 SEP 2022: X3D
> Application Stack Layers Alternatives diagram refinement
> More verbs:
>
> Require, Design, Implement, Release/Produce/Emit, Consume/Collect.
>
> More nouns:
>
> Source, Sink
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 1:00 PM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should focus on Author/Creator, Read/View,
>> Manipulate/Update/Edit/Transform/Convert, Debug/Test, Secure,
>>  Compress/Decompress, Publish/Evangelize, Buy/Browse, Sell/Purvey, more
>> verbs. … Archive
>>
>> On all our main classes:
>>
>> Standards, Object Models, Conversion Programs, Worlds, Scenes, Models,
>> Examples, Renderings, Bindings, Encodings, Schemas, Files,
>> Tools/Browsers/Apps/Libraries
>>
>> So on one axis we put verbs, and on other axis we put nouns/classes.
>>
>> I’m not really pushing my way.  I think it better demonstrates where work
>> needs to be done.
>>
>> In particular, our standards don’t refer to monetization at all.  GNU at
>> least advocates selling support, there’s Patreon, Odysee and 3D model
>> stores.
>>
>> Thanks, Don, for helping get beyond simple CRUD-GR!
>>
>> Woohoo!
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 10:12 AM Brutzman, Donald (Don) (CIV) <
>> brutzman at nps.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> John wrote:
>>>
>>>    - “Looked at layers and alternative attachment.  I’m wondering why
>>>    there’s two boxes for converting?“
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Good point.  There are two similar concepts I’m trying to distinguish:
>>>
>>> (a) 3D models can be converted for reuse offline,
>>>
>>> (b) translator libraries offer programming-library options for
>>> applications.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Attached please find this morning’s update.  Added a caption for further
>>> explanation:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    - “X3D is interoperable with diverse technologies, providing
>>>    multiple choices to developers.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Complicated territory – does this help describe the many options
>>> available with X3D?  Am striving for clarity and simplicity, if possible.
>>> Hopefully this diagram continues to improve, and might help us show the X3D
>>> value propositions more widely, including to Metaverse Standards Forum
>>> participants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Further review and comment by all is welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> all the best, Don
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br
>>> brutzman at nps.edu
>>>
>>> Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA
>>> +1.831.656.2149
>>>
>>> X3D graphics, virtual worlds, Navy robotics https://
>>> faculty.nps.edu/brutzman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Brutzman, Donald (Don) (CIV)
>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2022 11:43 AM
>>> *To:* X3D Public Mailing List (x3d-public at web3d.org) <
>>> x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>> *Cc:* brutzman at nps.edu
>>> *Subject:* X3D Working Group meeting 23 SEP 2022: Mantis issues review,
>>> ballot deadlines, X3D Application Stack Layer Examples diagram
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Attendees: Dick Puk, Don Brutzman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. We first reviewed the two recently posted Mantis issues regarding SVG
>>> and QIF.  We also looked at a Mantis issue posted earlier this year
>>> relating to scalable composition of really large X3D worlds.  Selected
>>> details follow.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. Mantis 1400: add Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) to recommended
>>>    image formats for ImageTexture
>>>
>>> https://www.web3d.org/member-only/mantis/view.php?id=1400
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SVG references:
>>>
>>> * https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG
>>> * "SVG is a markup language for describing two-dimensional graphics
>>> applications and images, and a set of related graphics script interfaces."
>>>
>>> Dick estimation: thinks SVG is a 2D scene-graph definition language. It
>>> can result as an image, though so can X3D.
>>>
>>> This issue suggests that SVG be listed as a recommended (optional)
>>> format that can be rendered as an ImageTexture, using the default
>>> presentation settings of the SVG model.
>>>
>>> Of note is that browsers are not forbidden from implementing SVG as an
>>> ImageTexture format, and also that SVG-to-PNG converters are commonplace.
>>>
>>> Of further note is that the DPS minutes already showed a use case for
>>> SVG as ImageTexture, namely conversion of metadata information as a
>>> carefully laid-out annotation image that is billboarded in context. Having
>>> direct SVG rendering would eliminate the offscreen conversion step,
>>> permitting direct integration of X3D models with other HTML/SVG web
>>> graphics.
>>>
>>> Concern: don't want to overcomplicate the existing ImageTexture
>>> functionality as a 2D array of pixels. Once generation of pixels becomes a
>>> computational process, this is different functionality for the ImageTexture
>>> node. This might raise further concerns about impact of ImageTexture
>>> computational complexity in various profiles (such as Interchange Profile).
>>>
>>> Possible alternate: define SvgTexture node? What fields would it have?
>>>
>>> Suggested possible resolution:
>>>
>>> a. Browsers are welcome to implement ImageTexture as an allowed url
>>> format if they see fit,
>>> b. SvgTexture ought to be designed and considered as a possible new node,
>>> c. ComposedImageTexture (or somesuch) might be designed and considered
>>> as an even-more general possibility for comuputational 2D imagery,
>>> d. Following further practical experience, defer any
>>> specification-change recommendations to future X3D4.1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. Mantis 1401: aligning X3D4 LineProperties with Quality
>>>    Information Framework (QIF) specification
>>>
>>> https://www.web3d.org/member-only/mantis/view.php?id=1401
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Suggested resolution:
>>>
>>> a. The concepts are directly aligned and overlapping, with some
>>> additions by QIF.
>>> b. This ISO standard does not appear to have been considered by SC24 or
>>> JTC1.
>>> c. Close scrutiny of both terms and definitions needs to be performed
>>> before any changes might be recommended.
>>> d. If changes are indeed warranted and acceptable, then they likely need
>>> to first considered as part of the Registry of Items, specifically entries
>>> for linestyle and hatchstyle.
>>> e. At that point, amendment of X3D to stay aligned with Registry of
>>> Items (or possibly add further styles independently) can be considered.
>>> f. Defer to X3D 4.1.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile note in Web3D current ballot comments the need to fix the
>>> table erratum previously noted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. Mantis 1192: 07.2.2 Bindable children nodes - Undefined results
>>>    if bindable node is under Switch or LOD is problematic
>>>
>>> https://www.web3d.org/member-only/mantis/view.php?id=1192#bugnotes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Comment on 19775-1: Abstract X3D Definitions - V3.3
>>> 7.2.2 Bindable children nodes
>>>
>>> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/components/core.html#BindableChildrenNodes
>>>
>>> -----------------
>>> Subject: Undefined results if bindable node is under Switch or LOD is
>>> problematic
>>>
>>> Spec sayeth:
>>> "The results are undefined if a bindable node is bound and is the child
>>> of an LOD, Switch, or any node or prototype that disables its children."
>>>
>>> This leads to all manner of inconsistent problems among scenes. It also
>>> means that Inline node (which may or may not include bindable nodes) has
>>> undefined behavior under LOD/Switch/etc.
>>>
>>> As a result, in addition to indeterminate X3D browser behavior, it means
>>> that X3D scenes are not fully composable. That is contrary to X3D design
>>> objectives.
>>>
>>> Different prose and deterministic guidelines is needed in this section
>>> that provides clear rules for binding/unbinding nodes when they become
>>> active within LOD/Switch/etc. Small adaptations to current binding rules
>>> can likely address this problem satisfactorily.
>>>
>>> Related: Mantis issue 749
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> April 29:
>>>
>>> Analysis during X3D Working Group call:
>>>
>>> a. Switch would keep each binding stack aligned with whichever child was
>>> active, thereby binding and unbinding nodes whenever the Switch level is
>>> modified.
>>>
>>> b. LOD would have all of its child bindable nodes on the binding stack
>>> throughout, so that user experience was consistent. For example, it would
>>> make no sense for Viewpoints to get arbitrarily unbound and bound, based on
>>> range to viewer, as a user independently navigated through a scene.
>>>
>>> c. LOD attempting to maintain author intent has access to all Viewpoint
>>> nodes on binding stack, and range-to-viewer LOD transitions are either
>>> flexible suggestions (browser-optimization control) or rigidly enforced
>>> (forceTransitions field is TRUE). Thus if a node is subsequently bound by
>>> user in a different inactive LOD child branch, then that binding event is
>>> honored and that LOD child branch becomes the active child branch. This
>>> binding event (and changed LOD child branch selection) takes precedence
>>> over browser range/performance considerations, and also takes precedence
>>> over whatever value is provided in forceTransitions field. (Example:
>>> selecting a room Viewpoint while in a large building model).
>>>
>>> d. NavigationInfo, Background and Fog binding stacks and responses to
>>> binding events should behave identically to Viewpoint. Variations would be
>>> exceedingly complex and not understandable. Consistency means that author
>>> intent and user action always take precedence, for Switch and LOD response.
>>>
>>> Spec editors work on integrating these principles as specification prose
>>> (we are close already) and report back recommended changes to X3D working
>>> group.
>>>
>>> Don's opinion: this will significantly help user-sensible scalability of
>>> huge (perhaps Metaverse-scale) models using many Inline and prototype
>>> nodes, enabling predictable and performant navigation and traversal
>>> throughout.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Today’s session.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alternatives deserving working-review consensus:
>>>
>>> a. Recommending this clarification of undefined prior specification
>>> prose might add important value, or might be construed as a technical
>>> change to X3D4.0 that possibly requires future re-balloting as another X3D
>>> 4.0 DIS (which is not an acceptable outcome).
>>>
>>> b. If not balloted then this becomes an X3D4.1 issue.
>>>
>>> c. Web3D might consider some alternative approach to strongly encourage
>>> adoption of this clarified approach in order to further encourage greater
>>> scalability of multi-world environments, and better alignment with shared
>>> Metaverse design imperatives. For example, are we creating a Best Practices
>>> Pending X3D 4.1 Approval document of some sort?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. We only have 4 total issues to review as planned Web3D comments.
>>> This will occur during a single working-group meeting, 7 OCT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Deadline for X3D Ballot comments:
>>>
>>>    - OCT, Web3D comments to INCITS (U.S. National Standards Body
>>>    - TBD OCT, INCITS comments to SC24
>>>    - 4 NOV, SC24 comments to ISO
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No meeting currently planned for 30 SEP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. Bonus round: we worked on the “layer” diagram from recent meetings a
>>> bit more.  Latest X3dApplicationStackLayerExamples is attached, all
>>> comments welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have fun with X3D!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> all the best, Don
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br
>>> brutzman at nps.edu
>>>
>>> Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA
>>> +1.831.656.2149
>>>
>>> X3D graphics, virtual worlds, Navy robotics https://
>>> faculty.nps.edu/brutzman
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20220924/c0f3e58d/attachment-0001.html>