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.

[funksoup]

Proposals are listed in our README.
For convenience, re-posted here:

• 3D Asset Interoperability
• Digital Asset Interoperability
• Digital Fashion Wearables for Avatars
• Real/Virtual World Integration

And courtesy, of @fire, as PDFs:
3D Asset Interoperability
Digital Asset Interoperability
Digital Fashion Wearables for Avatars
Real/Virtual World Integration

[fire]

There are at least four proposals from MSF.

3D Asset Interoperability
Digital Asset Interoperability
Digital Fashion Wearables for Avatars
Real/Virtual World Integration

I would like an example implementation of these proposals.

For example our group V-Sekai have collaborated with an artist MohkaNoir though silent:

https://twitter.com/MohkaNoir/status/1584236892521832448

1. Mire is made in .blend and .unityasset forms
2. Mire can be converted to gltf and vrm
3. There are at least 3 types of clothing and a base model.
   1. black shirt
   2. dress variant 1
   3. dress variant 2
   4. base model
4. What would it look like in Viverse, Cluster.mu, Third Room, V-Sekai and kalidoface 3d?

[fire]

Here are the proposals as pdfs.

Digital Asset Management - Domain Exploratory Group Proposal.pdf
3D Asset Interoperability using USD and glTF - Domain Exploratory Group Proposal.pdf
Wearables for Avatars Exploratory Group Proposal.pdf
Metaverse Standards Forum Domain Exploratory Group Proposal - Real_Virtual World Integration.pdf

[humbletim]

I would like an example implementation of these proposals.

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).

[fire]

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).

Sorry can you rewrite this paragraph for a 5 year old comprehension level?

[humbletim]

Sorry can you rewrite this paragraph for a 5 year old comprehension level?

sure, please help by specifying which parts don't make sense (specific questions would be ideal...)

[fire]

1. MSF Domain Working Group are not specific. My interpretation is don't do work using the domain working groups.
2. May come later. My interpretation is nothing happens unless moved. (Newton's first law.)
3. A study of implementations. you must first catalogue of specification such as a directory of implementations, like their name and use. My interpretation is that no work must occur until the catalogue is done.

[fire]

I had a really hard time parsing #31 (comment). Can you help me interpret what you wrote?

[humbletim]

ahh ok thank you:

1. MSF Domain Working Group are not specific. My interpretation is don't do work using the domain working groups.

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.).

2. May come later. My interpretation is nothing happens unless moved. (Newton's first law.)

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:

• Anyone adds an idea to the MSF Brainstorming Spreadsheet (forum-wide curation)
• Upvotes are collected in that spreadsheet (forum-wide curation)
• MSF member(s) decide (so far, for themselves) to draft a proposal (small offline teams)
• MSF Oversight Initial Review (blessed by MSF principals during oversight meeting)
• MSF Membership review (forum-wide consideration)
• MSF Oversight Approval (actual vote to proceed into domain group formation)

3. A study of implementations. you must first catalogue of specification such as a directory of implementations, like their name and use. My interpretation is that no work must occur until the catalogue is done.

Standards Registry Exploratory Group seems like a match with that interpretation; other domain groups seem to be exploring other strategies.

[fire]

1. MSF Domain Working Group are not specific. The MSFDWG is watering holes for interested parties to show their research.
2. May come later. (Still correct) My interpretation is nothing happens unless moved. (Newton's first law of motion: inertia)
3. Standards Registry Exploratory Group works on the catalogue of existing tools and research.
   4. The other MSFDWG are unknown. My interpretation is expect exploration.

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.