-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
As a member of the MSF-Delegates group, I would like to review the exploratory group proposals so that I can offer highlights and an overview to the OMI community. #31
Comments
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
note that those particular ones are MSF Domain Working Group Proposals -- existing at a slightly higher level than technical standards proposals. so matching against implementations seems useful but dependent on having specifics to match against (which may come later as SDOs take on offshoot specification work or R&D plugfest uncover prototyping/demo opps). a study of existing/matching implementations details could make immediate sense as part of the other MSF group type emerging (the Standards Registry effort, where already work has begun to catalogue existing standards). |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
sure, please help by specifying which parts don't make sense (specific questions would be ideal...) |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
ahh ok thank you:
First part sounds correct but second part does not seem to compute... From MSF Oversight meetings, "exploratory" groups appear as high level umbrella teams -- where "sub watering holes" are imagined to precipitate out of later (into offshoots like an SDO adopting formalities for a technical specification subgroup, an R&D / demo days to shine light into corners, etc.).
Well right but individual domain groups seem to be figuring out their exact processes, and it's possible some will move faster towards implementation details than others... so it really depends on which group. It might help to understand an (oversimplified) summary of how these proposals/groups have come into existence so far:
Standards Registry Exploratory Group seems like a match with that interpretation; other domain groups seem to be exploring other strategies. |
My recommendation is OMIGROUP as a SDO should publish research reports and more standards as possible with the member time and effort budgets. Have research reports and standards to present at the watering hole. |
Proposals are listed in our README.
For convenience, re-posted here:
And courtesy, of @fire, as PDFs:
3D Asset Interoperability
Digital Asset Interoperability
Digital Fashion Wearables for Avatars
Real/Virtual World Integration
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: