[Requests] Requests Digest, Vol 67, Issue 1

李青元 liqy at casm.ac.cn
Sun Aug 14 20:57:26 EDT 2016


Dear Carl:
I am very interested in 3D-Tiles standard. I am research in data model and
algorithm of 3D geology modeling. The 3D-tiles model is very useful in 3D
geology 
model. I have interest to take part in your work.
Regards!
Qingyuan Li (Chinese Academy of Surveying & Mapping) 




requests-request at lists.opengeospatial.org 写:

> Send Requests mailing list submissions to
> 	requests at lists.opengeospatial.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/requests
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	requests-request at lists.opengeospatial.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	requests-owner at lists.opengeospatial.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Requests digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Review of 3d-tiles Community Standard Justification and
>       related spec files (Carl Reed)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:16:00 -0600
> From: Carl Reed <carl.n.reed at gmail.com>
> To: requests at lists.opengeospatial.org
> Subject: Re: [Requests] Review of 3d-tiles Community Standard
> 	Justification and related spec files
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAJcQiLc2ns2pQV5w=aA1J_+odS_mFqW8mJ2JC2oUnP3UzQwg-Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Dear Scott and 3D-Tiles submission team -
> 
> Thank you for submitting the 3D-Tiles specification as a candidate for
> using the Community standard Process.
> 
> As you may know, when I was the OGC Executive Director Standard, I reviewed
> and commented on numerous candidate standard submissions. Just ask the Open
> GeoSMS or SensorThings SWGs how extensive my comments and edits can be!
> 
> So, I decided to take the same approach with the 3D-Tiles submission.
> Attached are two documents:
> 
> 1. The Justification document with edits and comments.
> 2. The 3D-Tiles specification as a Word file with edits and comments. This
> file does not include the TileFormats clauses, although I read those also.
> 
> Please note that I had to removes some graphics to make this email small
> enough for the OGC list server.
> 
> I also browsed the schemas, the glTF spec, and other supporting documents.
> I appreciated the ability to review all of the supporting documentation,
> presentations, and so forth.
> 
> However, I have to object to the submission as a potential candidate for
> the Community Standards track for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Maturity. As clearly stated in the 3D-Tiles document "We expect the
> initial 3D Tiles spec to evolve until fall 2016. If you are OK with things
> changing, then yes, jump in. The Cesium implementation is in the 3d-tiles
> <https://github.com/AnalyticalGraphicsInc/cesium/tree/3d-tiles> branch.
>>From other documentation, the idea for 3D-Tiles first appeared in 2014 and
> the spec announced in august 2015. This does not indicate a mature
> specification. from my perspective, mature specs/standards are GeoTIFF,
> GeoRSS, and ShapeFiles. Further, changes are being made on a regular basis.
> Maturity suggests a stable baseline. Finally, a number of components are
> shown as still in progress.
> 
> 2. Evidence of Implementation: The 11 provided examples is not sufficient
> as evidence of a strong and diverse implementation community. Bentley is
> the only major international company on the list and there product that
> includes 3D-Tiles has been announced but not released. Bentley also
> supports i3s, another tiling system. To me, GeoJSON has strong evidence of
> implementation with hundreds of open source and commercial implementations
> (Google, Twitter, Esri, AutoDesk, and many more). This is the level of
> evidence I believe is required  for a spec to be submitted as a community
> standard. Check the comments in the attached files.
> 
> 3. The spec document: The specification document needs work. There are
> TODOs scattered throughout the various components as well as the word
> "draft" in the schemas. A variety of informative (and marketing) content is
> included in the specification. These should be moved to a separate
> informative document. I comments notes in the attached spec file.
> 
> 4. Dependencies: The core spec needs to clearly state what the 3D-Tiles
> spec dependencies are on other specs/standards, such as glTF and WebGL. The
> current version of 3D-Tiles seems to be quite tied to a Khronos type
> workflow. If this is the case, what is the impact on a.) learning curve and
> b.) the ability use use other visualization/rendering workflows? I have no
> problem with glTF or WebGL but I do have concerns about overly tight
> couplings that discourage other approaches.
> 
> 5. Use cases: The OGC has not (yet) clearly identified and documented use
> case for 3D-Tiles. There is the current work in Testbed 12 on vector tiles.
> Trying to process 3D-Tiles in the absense of the larger requirements and
> use case context may be pre-mature.
> 
> 6. Requirements: While a community Standard submission does not need to
> follow the OGC modular specification, requirements should be clearly
> stated. This is not the case with the 3D-Tiles spec. Some work is required
> so that mandatory elements (requirements) and optional elements are clearly
> identified.
> 
> 7. Coordinate Reference Systems (CRS): A section needs to be added to
> clearly state the "whats" and "hows" of CRSs. Simply sating WGS 84 is
> inadequate, especially since "long/lat" coordinate order appears.
> Basically, the CRS aspects of the spec are lacking and as a result
> confusing.
> 
> 8. There are other 3D Tiling approaches. The OGC should have time to
> consider other approaches to ensure that the broader requirements of the
> entire community are best addressed.
> 
> 9. All the examples and implementation references seem to require Cesium.
> While the 3D-Tiles spec states that 3D-Tiles is an agnostic approach to
> streaming geospatial content, this statement is followed by: We expect to
> see other visualization engines and conversion tools use 3D Tiles. This
> suggests that there are no other implementations other than using the
> Cesium framework. I would like to see implementations independent of Cesium.
> 
> 10. Vector data. This is in progress. Currently, the spec points to the
> Cesium tutorial on geometry. Cesium geometry is graphics oriented although
> there are some references to ellipsoid. I think an interesting exercise
> would be to map Cesium geometry to ISO 19107/GML/Simple features so that
> developers have a roadmap for streaming 19107 specified geometry into
> 3D-Tiles.
> 
> My recommendations would be to:
> 
> 1. Do a new interoperability experiment with the 3D Portrayal Service SWG.
> The focus of this IE would be to write an OGC Best Practice for the use of
> 3D-Tiles with the OGC 3DPS Interface standard.
> 
> 2. Work on and mature the physical core specification document.
> 
> 3. Allow more time for the community to implement and use 3D-Tiles -
> increase the evidence of implementation.
> 
> 4. Look at the provision of an implementation that does not require Cesium.
> 
> I am not trying to be overly harsh. However, the Community Standard track
> and related PnP was designed for the submission and processing of mature,
> robust, widely implemented and used specifications. 3D-Tiles is simply not
> at that level of community adoption yet.
> 
> Regards
> 
> -- 
> Carl Reed, PhD
> Carl Reed and Associates
> 
> Mobile: 970-402-0284
> 
> "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know
> peace." Jimi Hendrix
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20160811/
cbd7d77b/attachment.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: 3d-tiles spec CNR Comments and edits.docx
> Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
> Size: 1811382 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20160811/
cbd7d77b/attachment.docx>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: 16-123_3D_Tiles_community_standard_justification CNR Comments.docx
> Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
> Size: 2758894 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20160811/
cbd7d77b/attachment-0001.docx>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Requests mailing list
> Requests at lists.opengeospatial.org
> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/requests
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Requests Digest, Vol 67, Issue 1
> ***************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20160815/41ddec77/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Requests mailing list