OpenMATERIAL Standard name and subparts

[asadekasam]

Describe the problem

The discussion is ongoing about OpenMATERIAL standard name and subparts. The purpose of this Issue is to collect the feedback from both groups on this topic, and come up with a decision or some questions to vote on.

Ask your question

Should we keep the name OpenMATERIAL? What other suggestions could be more suitable?

Could the Material and Geometry parts be published as subparts and companies could adhere to a specific subpart independently?

[ClemensLinnhoff]

As per the vote from last week, the decision is to have one standard. So that question is already answered.

But still the question remains, how we declare the subparts. Is it enough to just have two chapters? Or is there some other official mechanisms two have multiple parts in one ASAM standard?

[ClemensLinnhoff]

Check proposed main introduction for the standard documentation: https://github.com/asam-ev/OpenMATERIAL/pull/166

[asadekasam]

@ClemensLinnhoff Sorry wrote that in a hurry. Question fixed now 👍

[ClemensLinnhoff]

Suggestions:

• Generally a shorter name would be prefered. We could officially name the standard "ASAM OpenMATERIAL & 3D model structure" but everybody would just call it "OpenMATERIAL" as a nickname.
• Technically, something like OpenASSET or Open3DASSET would be more correct, because asset refers to the entire 3D model including its materials. And this definition would enable future additions, like animations etc.
• A workaround could be naming it OpenMATERIAL+, OpenMATERIALx or OpenMATERIAL3D to make clear that there is more to the standard than "just" materials.
• We could have a shorter name that still facilitates both parts, e.g. OpenMATERIAL-ASSET, OpenMATERIAL-GEOMETRY
• We could just stick with OpenMATERIAL and people will learn over time that it also contains geometry.

[LudwigFriedmann]

The more I read it, the more I like OpenMATERIAL3D. Would it be possible to introduce a blank, i.e. ASAM OpenMATERIAL 3D? Like this, the standalone expression OpenMATERIAL would still be a valid reference. Nevertheless, it would be clear that there's more to the standard than materials.

Otherwise, I'd also propose OpenASSET&MATERIAL

[asadekasam]

An update from ASAM Office: ASAM OpenMATERIAL® is a registered trademark. This part should be kept in the name, as it will cost a lot to change now. Adding text after that is possible. So examples like ASAM OpenMATERIAL® 3D or ASAM OpenMATERIAL® 3DASSET are valid options.

[ClemensLinnhoff]

So, with the trademark considerations we have the following options:

• ASAM OpenMATERIAL®
• ASAM OpenMATERIAL® & 3D model structure
• ASAM OpenMATERIAL® +, ASAM OpenMATERIAL® X or ASAM OpenMATERIAL® 3D
• ASAM OpenMATERIAL® Asset or ASAM OpenMATERIAL® Geometry

[MatthiasThDs]

I also like

• ASAM OpenMATERIAL® 3D

[rFproMattDaley]

I would prefer: ASAM OpenMATERIAL® Asset --> as asset encompasses everything about the objects... the geometry and the materials I am building a asset for simulation and it's an ASAM OpenMATERIAL Asset :)

[ClemensLinnhoff]

@AsamDiegoSanchez please set up a vote between the two options:

• ASAM OpenMATERIAL® 3D
• ASAM OpenMATERIAL® Asset

[AsamDiegoSanchez]

Vote form has been created to collect responses. Here everyone can cast their vote: https://forms.office.com/e/HhWGYz5B88