Difference between revisions of "Plans for Merging X3D AR Proposals"
From Web3D.org
(in Unicode are true arrows, so I put it instead of poor approximation) |
(avoid misplacing of text) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
** From the scene writer's point of view, preferably less code for commonly/frequently used features, while detail control available for special cases. | ** From the scene writer's point of view, preferably less code for commonly/frequently used features, while detail control available for special cases. | ||
** From the user's (viewer's) point of view, the scene should be adopted to the hardware/software environment (tracker, camera device, browser, etc.) s/he has. In other words, scene writer should not specify hardware/software environment in the scene, which is on the users' side. | ** From the user's (viewer's) point of view, the scene should be adopted to the hardware/software environment (tracker, camera device, browser, etc.) s/he has. In other words, scene writer should not specify hardware/software environment in the scene, which is on the users' side. | ||
| − | |||
2. Produce a merged proposal for each functional components | 2. Produce a merged proposal for each functional components | ||
| Line 24: | Line 23: | ||
** Camera calibration (viewpoints) | ** Camera calibration (viewpoints) | ||
** Others (color-keying, depth occlusion) | ** Others (color-keying, depth occlusion) | ||
| − | |||
3. Check Integrity of the merged proposal | 3. Check Integrity of the merged proposal | ||
* Check and resolve conflicts between individual functional components | * Check and resolve conflicts between individual functional components | ||
* Merge overlapping features between individual functional components | * Merge overlapping features between individual functional components | ||
| − | |||
4. Specification writing | 4. Specification writing | ||
5. Review | 5. Review | ||
Revision as of 20:41, 6 July 2012
This page is for discussing plans for merging X3D AR proposals, compared in Comparison of X3D AR Proposals.
These are the steps we will take as a process of merging the X3D AR proposals:
1. Discuss general strategy/policy/guidelines
- General design guidelines in Web3D consortium level? → Not in explicit form, but there are in the concept sections of node specifications.
- Notes from Don and Dick:
- When a new field is added to a node, carefully choose a default value for backward compatibility.
- For consistency, mixing multiple functions into a single node is not recommended.
- Device independence is taken for granted.
- For identifying devices, URNs could be a proper way to describe them.
- Metric for names - We have the right name if nobody asks about it anymore.
- Start with designing abstract functionality first and then move on to the node specification.
- Build examples/use cases and use them as a test for integrity.
- Rule of thumb
- From the scene writer's point of view, preferably less code for commonly/frequently used features, while detail control available for special cases.
- From the user's (viewer's) point of view, the scene should be adopted to the hardware/software environment (tracker, camera device, browser, etc.) s/he has. In other words, scene writer should not specify hardware/software environment in the scene, which is on the users' side.
2. Produce a merged proposal for each functional components
- Investigate each functional features stepwise:
- Camera video stream image into the scene (texture and background)
- Tracking (including support for general tracking devices)
- Camera calibration (viewpoints)
- Others (color-keying, depth occlusion)
3. Check Integrity of the merged proposal
- Check and resolve conflicts between individual functional components
- Merge overlapping features between individual functional components
4. Specification writing
5. Review
