EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/cgplwlist/cgplw02501-02750.txt/[e-mail]_Tue Feb 14 21:25:55 PST 1995.msg

Text File | 1995-02-19 | 19KB | 411 lines

Article: 2635 of comp.graphics.packages.lightwave
Xref: netcom.com news.announce.newgroups:5970 news.groups:125295 comp.graphics:65904 comp.graphics.packages.alias:1462 comp.graphics.packages.lightwave:2635 comp.graphics.raytracing:10400
Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!bounce-back
From: [e-mail] (Steve Hollasch)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,comp.graphics,comp.graphics.packages.alias,comp.graphics.packages.lightwave,comp.graphics.raytracing
Subject: RFD: comp.graphics reorganization
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 12 Feb 1995 22:23:00 -0500
Organization: none
Lines: 394
Sender: [e-mail]
Approved: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <3hmjak$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net

=== Summary ===

    This RFD continues a discussion initiated last fall concerning the
reorganization of the comp.graphics hierarchy.  It involves most of the
existing groups under comp.graphics, and several others such as
comp.soft-sys.wavefront and comp.windows.x.pex.  Also included here is a
summary of the results of the straw poll regarding the establishment of a
comp.graphics.packages and/or a comp.graphics.apps hierarchy.


=== Introduction ===

    In the last two years, the comp.graphics hierarchy has grown from four
newsgroups to about twenty.  In an effort to organize the haphazard
organization of current newsgroups and to pave the way for more orderly
introduction of future computer graphics newsgroups, I am proposing a
reorganization of the comp.graphics newsgroup hierarchy, and some newsgroups
associated with computer graphics but not in the hierarchy proper.

    This proposal involves several steps -- it's a large task, but I believe
the result will be a more organized and cohesive computer graphics newsgroup
space.  In addition, we'll be able to decide now how we want the namespace to
expand, rather than dickering over it each time a new newsgroup is
introduced.  If you care at all about the organization of computer graphics
newsgroups, I urge you to review this proposal.

    Please note that in order for a common discussion of this proposal to
take place, followups to this proposal are directed to news.groups.  I have
set the Followup-To: line to point to news.groups automatically, and suggest
that readers interested in this discussion subscribe to news.groups for the
duration of this discussion.

    I'd also like to apologize here for the delay between this post and the
previous ones.  By way of explanation, I got laid off, looked for a new job,
found one, went on vacation, went away for Christmas, moved to Washington,
started the job without any sort of net connection, finally patched one
together, and am still deep in the process of settling in.  I am determined
to keep things moving this time -- thanks to everybody for hanging in there.


=== The Straw Poll Results ===

    The straw poll sent out last fall asked which of the following options
was preferred:

        (a)  Establish a comp.graphics.packages hierarchy to contain all
         discussion of CG software packages and applications.

    (b)  Establish a comp.graphics.apps hierarchy to contain all
         discussion of CG software packages and applications.

    (c)  Establish both comp.graphics.packages and comp.graphics.apps,
         and use whichever is deemed most appropriate on a group-by-group
         basis.

        (d)  Other.

    There were a total of 39 votes, broken down as follows:

        19 voted to use comp.graphics.apps.
     8 voted to use comp.graphics.packages.
     8 voted to use both.
     3 voted for no change (?).
         1 voted to use comp.graphics.app.

    As a result of this vote, the CG reorg will also propose to move
newsgroups currently located under the .packages hierarchy into the new
.apps hierarchy.


=== The Affected Newsgroups ===

    alt.graphics.pixutils
        Discussion of graphical images utilities.

    comp.graphics
        The original computer graphics newsgroup.  Currently dedicated to
        miscellaneous discussion.

    comp.graphics.apps.softimage
        The SoftImage software package.  Waiting until the hierarchy is
        decided.

    comp.graphics.avs
        The AVS scientific visualization application.

    comp.graphics.data-explorer
        The IBM Visualization Data Explorer software product (commonly known
        as DX).

    comp.graphics.explorer
        The Iris Explorer software product.

    comp.graphics.gnuplot
        The plotting software application.

    comp.graphics.opengl
        The OpenGL Application Programmer's Interface.

    comp.graphics.packages.alias
        Newly created; dedicated to Alias software.

    comp.graphics.packages.lightwave
        Newly created; dedicated to Lightwave-3D software.

    comp.graphics.raytracing
        Mix of raytracing methods and programs.

    comp.graphics.research
        Research in the field of computer graphics.

    comp.soft-sys.wavefront
        Wavefront software.

    comp.windows.x.pex
        The PEX protocol and API.


=== The Proposed Hierarchy ===

    + Candidate newsgroups (not in this proposal)

    comp.graphics/              / No longer a discussion group
        algorithms
        animation
        api/                    / New hierarchy
    +       inventor            / Could be created later; Open Inventor
            misc                / New newsgroup
            opengl              / From comp.graphics.opengl
            pex                 / From comp.windows.x.pex
        apps/                   / New hierarchy
        alias               / Alias software, from .packages.alias
        avs                 / From comp.graphics.avs
            data-explorer       / From comp.graphics.data-explorer
            iris-explorer       / From comp.graphics.explorer
            gnuplot             / From comp.graphics.gnuplot
            lightwave           / From .packages.lightwave
    +       pixutils            / To be created later; image proc. apps
            raytracers          / Split from comp.graphics.raytracing
    +       softimage           / To be created later; SOFTIMAGE package
            wavefront           / From comp.soft-sys.wavefront
    +   file-formats            / To be created later; image file formats
        misc                    / From comp.graphics
    +   modeling                / To be created later; object modeling
        rendering/              / New hierarchy
            misc                / New newsgroup
            renderman           / In RFD
            raytracing          / Split from comp.graphics.raytracing
        visualization


=== How Do We Get There From Here? ===

    This proposal addresses the creation of subhierarchies under
comp.graphics, and the move of existing newsgroups into these hierarchies.
It also includes the creation of "side-effect" newsgroups like
comp.graphics.api.misc and comp.graphics.rendering.misc.  Finally, it also
brings other computer graphics newsgroups into the comp.graphics newsgroup
hierarchy.

    After the hierarchy is established, additional new newsgroups will be
proposed and voted on.  These are included here in order to provide the
reader with a full overview of the final goal, and are really only intended
to give the reader a sense of what this proposal is all about.  I will
comment on the suggested newsgroups below.

    That said, here are the guts of the current proposal:

 1) Rename comp.graphics to comp.graphics.misc

    The original rationale for not creating a comp.graphics.misc group a
    couple of years ago was that comp.graphics was getting pretty cluttered
    with machine-specific and application-specific questions.  As such, it
    was generally viewed as a lightning-rod group for the comp.graphics
    hierarchy; it was hoped that the clueless newbie would sooner post to
    comp.graphics than any other group.  Groups which specialized in a
    particular field of computer graphics hoped that this would spare them
    from off-topic and out-of-charter posts.  I think it's time that we
    follow the rest of newsgroup convention and establish a .misc group.
    This has the added benefit (hopefully) that readers looking for a place
    to post will have to think twice about the group they choose.  It will
    also signal that a reorganization in general has taken place.

2a) Establish a new hierarchy:  comp.graphics.api

    It's time we had a place to discuss computer graphics Application
    Programmers' Interfaces.  This hierarchy would allow for discussion of a
    variety of graphics API's, from the more predominant OpenGL and PEX, to
    less popular API's like HOOPS, Dore', GKS, PHIGS, or whatever.

2b) Create comp.graphics.api.misc

    This newsgroup will be for discussion of less-popular API's, including
    API design discussion in general.  I propose the charter read as
    follows:

    << comp.graphics.api.misc is intended for the discussion of computer
    graphics Application Programmers' Interfaces not currently addressed in
    any other comp.graphics.api newsgroup.  It is further intended as a
    discussion of the design, concerns, compromises, relative merits and
    implementations of computer graphics API's in general. >>

2c) Rename comp.graphics.opengl to comp.graphics.api.opengl

    This puts the OpenGL newsgroup in the new API hierarchy.

2d) Rename comp.windows.x.pex to comp.graphics.api.pex

    I think that a discussion of PEX fits better in the computer
    graphics space alongside other graphics API's such as OpenGL.  PEX
    discussion is somewhat buried right now as a subset of the X protocol.
    Another possibility is to split comp.windows.x.pex so that protocol
    discussion remains in comp.windows.x.pex, but API discussion goes to
    comp.graphics.api.pex.  However, it doesn't look like the newsgroup is
    large enough to justify such a split.

3a) Establish a new hierarchy:  comp.graphics.apps

    The most popular choice in the straw poll was to use a hierarchy called
    "apps" rather than "packages" for computer graphics software.  Probably
    the strongest reason for this is that a "software package" usually
    denotes mid- to large-scale software, released as a bundled collection
    of modules by a single commercial source.  Computer graphics software
    that falls outside of this definition (POV-RAY, gnuplot, paint programs,
    and the like) would then need another hierarchy to include small-scale
    or single-module software applications.

    Rather than needlessly categorize the types of software, most respondents
    chose instead to create a single hierarchy, called "apps".

3b) Rename c.g.gnuplot to comp.graphics.apps.gnuplot
3c) Rename c.g.avs to comp.graphics.apps.avs
3d) Rename c.g.data-explorer to comp.graphics.apps.data-explorer

    Move these groups into the new comp.graphics.apps hierarchy.

3e) Rename comp.graphics.explorer to comp.graphics.apps.iris-explorer

    The name change would also help distinguish this group from the
    comp.graphics.packages.data-explorer group.

3f) Rename comp.graphics.packages.alias to comp.graphics.app.alias
3g) Rename comp.graphics.packages.lightwave to comp.graphics.app.lightwave

    Move these newsgroups from the old .packages hierarchy into the .apps
    hierarchy.

3h) Rename comp.soft-sys.wavefront to comp.graphics.packages.wavefront

    It makes sense to keep the Alias, Softimage and Wavefront newsgroups
    in the same place, since they are all competing software.

3i) Move raytracer-specific discussion to comp.graphics.apps.raytracers

    The comp.graphics.raytracing group is aimed ``primarily at the user
    level'' (from the charter).  It's a mix of raytracing application
    discussion and raytracing theory, and also includes discussions of
    radiosity and other rendering methods (also from the charter).  I
    propose that comp.graphics.apps.raytracers be created to hold
    discussions of raytracing software and applications specifically - where
    to get it, what to do with it, examples of usage, problems with
    installation or implementation, and so on.  Discussion of the theory
    and implementation of the raytracing algorithm will be diverted into
    .rendering.raytracing, described below.

    Using the original charter written by Andy Wardley, I propose that the
    comp.graphics.apps.raytracers read as follows:

    << comp.graphics.apps.raytracers is dedicated to the discussion of ray
    tracing software, tools and methods for generating raytraced
    3d graphics.  For example:  ray tracing software (POV-Ray, Vivid, etc.),
    modeling software *specifically* for generating ray tracing
    scenes - such as Moray and POVcad - (discussion of general modeling
    software, CAD, etc., is not appropriate), and miscellaneous utilities,
    methods and issues.  Other issues that might be discussed include
    converting between formats, generating complex scene information,
    designing textures, and creating & using fonts.

    Binaries should not be posted to the group.  Pictures should be posted
    to alt.binaries.pictures.misc and executables to the appropriate
    comp.binaries group.  Scene description files ("source") may be posted
    to the group.

    Discussion of raytracing theory and implementation is directed to
    comp.graphics.rendering.raytracing. >>

4a) Create comp.graphics.rendering.misc

    For general discussion of miscellaneous rendering methods, including
    hybrid methods and new areas of research.  Also room for comparing
    different methods of rendering (e.g. raytracing vs. scanline).  I
    propose the following charter:

    << The comp.graphics.rendering.misc newsgroup is intended for the
    discussion of miscellaneous rendering methods not addressed directly in
    a comp.graphics.rendering newsgroup.  It is also intended as a forum for
    comparison between popular rendering methods (e.g. scan-line versus
    raytracing), and hybridization of current methods (raytracing &
    radiosity). >>

4b) Create comp.graphics.rendering.raytracing

    This newsgroup allows for a diversion of raytracing theory and
    implementation from the proposed comp.graphics.apps.raytracers newsgroup
    (renamed from comp.graphics.raytracing).  This group will be targeted
    for discussion of raytracing theory, and for those who write raytracers
    of their own.  It might also serve as a forum for discussing variations
    on the raytracing algorithm (ray-casting, radiance-like software, and
    so on).

    I propose the following charter:

    << The comp.graphics.rendering.raytracing newsgroup is intended for the
    discussion of the raytracing algorithm, implementing raytracers, and
    comparison of various implementation schemes and methods.  It is also
    intended as a forum of schemes associated with raytracing, such as
    spatial subdivision, implicit-surface speedups, and Monte-Carlo
    methods.  Readers who wish to discuss particular software applications
    and software are directed to comp.graphics.apps.raytracers. >>

 5) Rename comp.graphics.research to comp.graphics.algorithms.

    The cg.research newsgroup has been dead, and the moderator unreachable,
    for about two years now.  With the creation of the
    comp.graphics.algorithms newsgroup and other, more topically-focused
    newsgroups, I don't believe that this newsgroup would meet any needs
    that aren't currently taken care of.  Since the moderator is gone (I've
    tried a bunch of ways to reach him), I propose that we formally rename
    this newsgroup to comp.graphics.algorithms.

    Although an odd approach (as opposed to simply removing the group), this
    directs traffic that might have gone to the research newsgroup to the
    algorithms newsgroup (which already exists).  There is also precedent
    for such a strategy.


=== Possible Future Newsgroups ===

    The following are the newsgroups I think should be discussed and
possibly created AFTER the reorganization is completed.  They are presented
here only to give the reader an idea of the final goal, and to provide
context for some of the moves outlined above.

comp.graphics.api.inventor
    This newsgroup failed almost a year ago, and involved a dispute
    regarding a proposed hierarchy called comp.graphics.library.  This will
    be up for re-discussion again in mid-November.

comp.graphics.pixutils
    Pixel utilities (image manipulation software) are an important topic in
    computer graphics, and are often discussed in the comp.graphics
    newsgroup anyway.  This topic is currently discussed in
    alt.graphics.pixutils.  I think that we would be well-served to
    incorporate this discussion into the comp.graphics hierarchy.

comp.graphics.file-formats
    A significant portion of the comp.graphics newsgroup has always been
    devoted to discussion of graphics file-formats - identifying them,
    reading them, writing them, and converting them.  I think it's time for a
    dedicated newsgroup for this topic.

comp.graphics.modeling
    Since we have an animation group, and I'm proposing a rendering
    hierarchy, why not fill it out with a modeling newsgroup?  Another
    possibility is to create comp.graphics.modeling.misc.

comp.graphics.apps.softimage
    This newsgroup has been suggested already, and fits in with the Alias
    and Wavefront newsgroups.  It is currently on hold until the packages
    hierarchy is established.


===  What Now?  ===

    This proposal continues the RFD (Request For Discussion).  This means
that it is put forth to test for support and opposition, and for the
proponents of the proposal to "hammer out the kinks" before it's put to a
vote in the CFV (Call For Votes).  Now is the time for you to comment,
object or question the proposal.  I will try to incorporate the suggestions,
comments and opinions so that the proposal best reflects the consensus of
the readers and hence has the best shot at passing.

    I've presented this proposal as a comprehensive scheme, rather than a
series of phases.  My motivation for this is that I want to present a
complete and comprehensive picture of what I have in mind.  If most folks
would prefer, we could proceed with a sequence of well-defined stages (e.g.
the api hierarchy, the removal of comp.graphics.research, the apps
hierarchy, creating comp.graphics.file-formats, et cetera).  However, I
think we are better served to discuss the reorganization as a whole.

    You can follow-up to this pre-RFD proposal in news.groups or privately
to [e-mail].

                                        Steve <[e-mail]>