Re: LANG: OOGL (was Re: LANG: Re: scalability (VRML))

Kevin Goldsmith (
Mon, 20 Jun 1994 17:35:06 -0700

On Jun 20, 7:47am, John W. Barrus wrote:
> Subject: Re: LANG: OOGL (was Re: LANG: Re: scalability (VRML))

> I wouldn't call the Open Inventor file format public domain unless we've
> seen something from SGI that declares it in the public domain. However, I
> wouldn't expect to get any hassle from SGI just because we display objects
> by reading in files that use the Inventor format.
The format has been published. I'm not sure of the official details,
but one of the Inventor team on this list should be able to elaborate...

> Also, I believe that the other platforms will not have Open Inventor until
> late this year. The only company I know of that is working on a port is
> Portable Graphics.
Since VRML is a file format, not a development library, I merely offer
Inventor as a suggestion for file format. Inventor doesn't have to be ported
to every platform in order to use the file format. The viewer just needs to be
able to parse it.

> I don't think we need Open Inventor on any platform (although it would sure
> make our programming significantly easier.) I think we should try to use
> the file format for storing the models and add a few "node" types for
> moving around the web.
yup, cool.

> I like the file format because it is well documented, fairly complete for
> scene description, plenty of modeling tools, and it has been around for a
> while. I think we could adapt it to our needs. (By the way, as someone
> requested in an earlier note, it does allow both matrices and individual
> elements to describe transformations - translations, rotations, scales, or
> full matrix.)
the exact reason why I prefer it over OOGL which seems similar to
Inventor, but not as well-documented or accepted.