The Metaverse Standards Forum: Building Blocks for Interoperable XR

Decoding the Future: The Metaverse Standards Forum, XR, and the Quest for Interoperable Anchoring

John: Welcome, everyone, to our deep dive into a topic that’s foundational to the future of digital interaction: the Metaverse. Specifically, we’re going to unpack the crucial work being done by the Metaverse Standards Forum, explore the world of XR (Extended Reality), and demystify a concept known as “interoperable anchoring.” It might sound complex, but it’s all about making future digital worlds work together seamlessly.

Lila: Hi John! Great to be co-authoring this with you. So, for someone just hearing about this, “Metaverse Standards Forum” sounds pretty official. What’s their main goal, in simple terms?

John: An excellent starting point, Lila. In essence, the Metaverse Standards Forum provides a venue for cooperation between various standards organizations and companies. Their primary objective is to foster the development of interoperability standards for an open and inclusive metaverse. Think of it as trying to get everyone to agree on common “rules of the road” so that different metaverse platforms and experiences can connect and understand each other, rather than being isolated digital islands.

Lila: So, instead of having, say, a cool digital item in one game that you can’t take to another, this Forum wants to make that possible? Like a universal adapter for the metaverse?

John: Precisely. That’s a great analogy. An open metaverse thrives on interoperability – the ability for different systems, devices, or applications to connect and exchange information meaningfully. Without common standards, we’d end up with a fragmented landscape, much like the early days of the internet before protocols like HTTP and HTML became widely adopted.

Basic Info: What is the Metaverse Standards Forum?

Lila: Okay, that makes sense. So, who is part of this Forum? Is it just tech giants, or are smaller players involved too?

John: It’s a broad coalition, which is vital for its success. It includes leading standards organizations – bodies that already have deep experience in creating technical standards in various fields – and a wide array of companies, from major tech players to smaller innovators, all of whom have a stake in the future of the metaverse. The idea is that by bringing diverse perspectives to the table, the resulting standards will be more robust, widely applicable, and less likely to favor one particular company’s approach.

Lila: That collaborative approach sounds key. Are they creating brand new standards from scratch, or building on existing ones?

John: It’s a mix of both. The Forum aims to coordinate requirements and resources to foster the creation and evolution of standards, often within existing, well-established Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs). They identify gaps where new standards might be needed and promote pragmatic, action-based projects like plugfests (events where companies test the interoperability of their products), open-source tooling, and the development of consistent terminology. It’s about building bridges, not necessarily reinventing every wheel.

Lila: “Plugfests” – I like that! So it’s very hands-on, not just theoretical discussions?

John: Exactly. The focus is on tangible progress. For example, the Forum hosts “Special SDO Sessions,” like the one held on April 30, 2025, titled “Towards Interoperable Anchoring for XR.” These sessions are practical, focusing on specific technical challenges and solutions, bringing experts together to push the work forward. These aren’t just high-level talks; they delve into the nitty-gritty.

Supply Details: Understanding XR and the Need for Standards

John: Now, before we dive deeper into “interoperable anchoring,” let’s clarify “XR.” XR stands for Extended Reality, and it’s an umbrella term that encompasses Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR).

Lila: Right, VR is like putting on a headset and being in a completely different digital world, like in a game. AR is more like Pokémon GO, where digital stuff is overlaid onto our real world, seen through a phone, right? And MR… that’s a bit fuzzier for me.

John: You’ve got VR and AR spot on. Mixed Reality (MR) is a step further than AR. In MR, digital objects are not just overlaid on the real world, but they can also interact with it in a spatially aware manner. Imagine a virtual ball bouncing off your real-world desk, or a virtual character sitting on your actual sofa. These technologies are central to most visions of the metaverse, as they provide the immersive interfaces to access these digital or blended realities.

Lila: Got it. So, if the metaverse is going to be experienced through all these different XR technologies, from various companies, I can see why standards are so important. Without them, my fancy AR glasses from Company A might not work with a metaverse experience built by Company B, or my avatar’s cool hat might look completely different, or not show up at all!

John: Precisely. And it goes deeper than just aesthetics. Think about functionality: defining how users interact with virtual objects, how digital assets are represented and secured, how user identity is managed across platforms, and, crucially for our main topic, how digital information is anchored or “placed” consistently within a shared physical or virtual space, regardless of the device or application being used. This consistency is paramount for a coherent user experience.

Lila: So these standards would cover everything from how a digital chair “looks” to how it “behaves” if I try to sit on it in VR versus AR?

John: Yes, and much more. The scope is vast. It includes 3D asset formats, avatar representations, spatial computing elements, security protocols, payment systems, and data persistence. The Metaverse Standards Forum isn’t trying to tackle all of this single-handedly, but rather to coordinate and accelerate the efforts of many different SDOs that specialize in these respective areas. It’s a monumental task of orchestration.

Technical Mechanism: Unpacking Interoperable Anchoring for XR

John: This brings us to a very specific and important challenge the Forum is addressing: “interoperable anchoring for XR.” It was the focus of a key webinar and ongoing discussions, as highlighted in recent Forum communications.

Lila: “Interoperable anchoring.” Okay, break that down for us, John. What exactly is an “anchor” in this XR context?

John: Imagine you’re using an AR application, perhaps for interior design. You place a virtual sofa in your living room. That virtual sofa needs to stay in that exact spot relative to your real-world environment. If you walk around it, look at it from different angles, or even leave the room and come back later, it should still be there, perfectly positioned. An “anchor” is the digital information that defines that specific point or pose (position and orientation) in 3D space, linking the virtual object to the real world or a persistent virtual coordinate system.

Lila: So, it’s like a digital thumbtack that holds a virtual object in place?

John: That’s a good way to think of it. Now, why “interoperable” anchoring? Currently, different XR platforms and devices often have their own proprietary ways of creating and managing these anchors. This means an anchor created by one system might not be understandable or usable by another. If you and I are in the same physical room, using AR glasses from different manufacturers, and I place a virtual note on the wall, you might not see it, or it might appear in a different location for you. This breaks the sense of shared experience, which is fundamental to the metaverse concept.

Lila: Ah, so interoperable anchoring means creating a common language for these digital thumbtacks so everyone’s virtual objects stay put in the same place for everyone, no matter what device they’re using?

John: Exactly. Interoperable anchoring aims to ensure that spatial anchors can be shared and consistently resolved across different devices, platforms, and applications. This is critical for collaborative XR experiences, for persistent AR content in public spaces, and for building large-scale, shared digital worlds that seamlessly blend with our physical reality. The Metaverse Standards Forum’s “Towards Interoperable Anchoring for XR” initiative, with presentations from experts like Jérémy Lacoche & Jérôme Royan, is exploring how to achieve this.

Lila: What kind of technical challenges are involved in making anchors interoperable? It sounds complicated if different systems “see” the world differently.

John: It is indeed complex. Challenges include:

• Spatial Mapping and Relocalization: Devices need to understand their position and orientation within an environment. Different devices use different sensors (cameras, IMUs, depth sensors) and algorithms for this (SLAM – Simultaneous Localization and Mapping). Standardizing how this spatial understanding is represented and shared is key.
• Coordinate Systems: Establishing common or translatable coordinate systems is crucial. If my device thinks the “origin” (0,0,0 point) of the room is in one corner, and yours thinks it’s in another, our anchors won’t align.
• Data Formats for Anchors: What information does an anchor need to contain? Position, orientation, perhaps a timestamp, confidence levels, associated metadata? A standard format is needed.
• Discovery and Sharing Mechanisms: How do devices discover available anchors in an environment? How are they shared securely and efficiently?
• Persistence: How do anchors persist over time, even if the physical environment changes slightly (e.g., furniture moves)?
• Scalability and Privacy: How do we manage potentially millions or billions of anchors in large public spaces while respecting privacy and security? For instance, who owns the data about an anchor placed in a public park or a private home?

The Forum sessions are designed to bring together experts from various SDOs like ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) and others to collaborate on these problems.

Lila: Wow, that’s a lot to consider. So, are they proposing one single way to do all of this, or more like a set of guidelines that different systems can adapt to?

John: It’s generally more about defining common interfaces, data formats, and protocols that allow different systems to communicate anchor information effectively, rather than prescribing a single monolithic implementation. This allows for innovation within individual systems while ensuring they can “talk” to each other at the anchor level. The goal is to foster an ecosystem where multiple solutions can coexist and interoperate. Think of it like how different web browsers can all display the same HTML webpage, even if their internal rendering engines are different.

Lila: That makes sense – flexibility within a common framework. So, if this interoperable anchoring is achieved, what kind of new experiences could it unlock?

John: The possibilities are vast. Imagine city-wide AR experiences where digital art installations or navigational aids appear consistently for everyone. Collaborative industrial design where engineers using different XR headsets can all manipulate and see the same 3D model anchored in a shared physical space. Or even simple things, like leaving persistent virtual sticky notes for family members that appear on the fridge, visible through any AR-enabled device they might use. It’s about making the digital layer of our world more cohesive and shareable.

Team & Community: The Collaborative Force Behind the Forum

Lila: You mentioned the Forum brings together standards organizations and companies. Can you give us a sense of the scale and diversity of this community?

John: The Metaverse Standards Forum launched in June 2022 and quickly garnered widespread interest. It boasts hundreds of member organizations. This includes major SDOs like the Khronos Group (known for standards like OpenXR, Vulkan, and glTF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), and many others. On the company side, you have a broad spectrum from tech giants like Meta, Microsoft, Google, NVIDIA, Adobe, and Epic Games, to specialized software and hardware companies, and even end-user organizations exploring metaverse applications.

Lila: That’s a huge range! What’s the benefit for, say, a big SDO like Khronos or W3C to be part of this Forum, rather than just continuing their own work?

John: That’s a key question. While these SDOs are excellent at developing specific standards within their domains, the metaverse is inherently cross-domain. A single metaverse experience might require standards for 3D assets (Khronos’s glTF), web integration (W3C), geospatial information (OGC), avatar behavior, identity, and more. The Forum acts as a coordination venue to ensure these different pieces fit together, to identify overlaps or gaps, and to prevent duplicative efforts. It helps SDOs see the bigger picture and how their specific work contributes to the overall interoperable metaverse.

Lila: So it’s like a United Nations for metaverse standards, helping different “nations” (the SDOs) work towards common goals without treading on each other’s toes?

John: That’s a fair analogy. It provides “a venue for cooperation,” as their LinkedIn profile states. It’s not a standards-creating body itself, but a standards coordination body. This distinction is important. The actual technical work of writing a standard usually happens within the established processes of the member SDOs. The Forum helps guide what needs to be standardized and by whom, and facilitates communication between these groups.

Lila: And for the companies involved, what’s their incentive? Is it about shaping the future to align with their products, or ensuring they don’t get left behind?

John: It’s a combination of factors. Companies want to ensure that the future metaverse is one where their products and services can thrive. For many, this means an open, interoperable metaverse where they aren’t locked into a single vendor’s ecosystem. Participation allows them to:

• Influence the direction of standards development to ensure they are practical and meet market needs.
• Gain early insights into emerging standards, allowing them to prepare their products.
• Collaborate with peers and competitors to solve shared technical challenges, which can be more efficient than everyone trying to solve the same problems in isolation.
• Demonstrate commitment to an open metaverse, which can be attractive to consumers and developers.

Ultimately, a larger, more accessible, and interoperable metaverse benefits everyone in the ecosystem by growing the overall market.

Lila: That makes a lot of sense. It sounds like a very pragmatic approach to a very complex problem. How does the community actually interact? Is it all formal meetings, or are there other ways they collaborate?

John: There are formal meetings, of course, including plenary sessions and working group meetings that focus on specific “Domains of Interest.” These domains might cover topics like 3D Asset Interoperability, Avatars, Identity Management, or, as we’ve discussed, XR and spatial anchoring. But there’s also a lot of activity through mailing lists, collaborative documents, and, importantly, events like the Special SDO Sessions and plugfests we mentioned earlier. These practical, hands-on events are crucial for testing theories and driving tangible progress.

Use-cases & Future Outlook: What an Interoperable Metaverse Could Mean

John: With these foundational elements like interoperable anchoring being addressed, the potential use-cases for an open metaverse expand dramatically. We’re looking at a future where the lines between physical and digital blur in very meaningful ways.

Lila: So, beyond the virtual sticky notes and collaborative design, what are some of the bigger picture applications that standards like these could enable?

John: Think about education, for instance. Imagine a history class where students from different schools, using different VR headsets, can jointly explore a historically accurate, interactive 3D reconstruction of ancient Rome. Or medical students learning anatomy on a shared, highly detailed virtual human body, with a surgeon guiding them remotely, all seeing the same precise details.

Lila: That’s powerful! It takes learning from a textbook to a whole new level of immersion and collaboration. What about entertainment or social interaction?

John: In entertainment, picture massive, persistent virtual worlds for gaming or social events. You could attend a virtual concert with friends from around the globe, and your unique, personalized avatar – which you own and can take anywhere – is rendered faithfully across all platforms. Interoperable anchoring would mean that if a virtual stage is set up in a digital representation of Times Square, everyone sees it in the exact same spot relative to the virtual environment, regardless of how they’re accessing that world.

Lila: So, no more “is that virtual band playing on my left, or your left?” kind of confusion! And I love the idea of a truly portable avatar and digital items. That seems like a huge draw for users.

John: Absolutely. Digital ownership and portability of assets are key tenets of an open metaverse. This extends to commerce as well. Retailers could offer virtual try-ons for clothing where the digital garment realistically drapes on your interoperable avatar. You could then purchase that digital item (perhaps as an NFT, a Non-Fungible Token) and wear it in various metaverse platforms, or even receive a physical version. The ScienceDirect article “Exploring the impact of metaverse adoption on…” touches on how the metaverse can create value with efficient resources and inclusivity for retailers.

Lila: That sounds like it could really change how we shop and express ourselves online. What about more “serious” applications, like in industry or city planning?

John: The industrial metaverse is a huge area. Think of “digital twins” – virtual replicas of physical factories, machines, or even entire cities. With interoperable XR, engineers, maintenance crews, and city planners can:

• Collaboratively monitor and control real-world systems through their digital twins.
• Simulate changes or new processes in the virtual environment before implementing them in the real world, saving time and resources. For example, testing a new factory layout virtually.
• Provide remote assistance where an expert in another country can guide a local technician through a complex repair using shared AR views, with virtual instructions precisely anchored onto the real machinery. The MDPI article “Integrating Virtual Reality into Welding Training” hints at improved interoperability for such smart applications.

For city planning, officials and citizens could walk through proposed urban developments in a shared virtual space, experiencing the scale and impact before any construction begins.

Lila: The “digital twin” concept is fascinating. It’s like having a live, interactive blueprint that you can tinker with. The future outlook, then, is a much more integrated digital and physical existence?

John: Precisely. The long-term vision is a metaverse that isn’t just a collection of separate games or social platforms, but a persistent, shared, 3D layer of the internet that augments our reality and provides new spaces for interaction, creativity, and commerce. Achieving this requires not only technological breakthroughs but also these foundational standards for interoperability, identity, safety, and more. The World Economic Forum’s “Connected Future Initiative” also points towards the need for robust digital public infrastructure, which aligns with these goals.

Lila: It sounds like an incredibly ambitious future, but also one with a lot of potential benefits if we can get the groundwork right with things like the Metaverse Standards Forum.

John: Indeed. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. But the collaborative efforts being fostered by the Forum are essential steps in that journey. The focus on practical, interoperable solutions like consistent anchoring for XR experiences is exactly what’s needed to build that future, piece by piece.

Competitor Comparison: Open Metaverse vs. Walled Gardens

Lila: When we talk about standards, it often implies a desire to avoid a few dominant players controlling everything. Is there a “competition” here, not between standards bodies, but between the idea of an open, interoperable metaverse versus more closed, “walled garden” approaches?

John: That’s an astute observation, Lila. The “competition,” if you will, is indeed between philosophical and business approaches. A “walled garden” refers to a closed ecosystem where one company controls the hardware, software, app store, and rules, like some current mobile operating systems or game console platforms. In a metaverse context, this would mean your avatar, assets, and social connections might be trapped within that single company’s metaverse offerings.

Lila: So, if Company X builds a really popular metaverse, they might be tempted to keep it closed so users have to buy their hardware and developers have to use their tools exclusively?

John: Exactly. There are strong business incentives for companies to create such ecosystems – they control the user experience, data, and monetization. However, many argue that this stifles innovation, limits user choice, and ultimately prevents the metaverse from reaching its full potential. The vision championed by the Metaverse Standards Forum and its members is generally an “open metaverse.”

Lila: And an “open metaverse” would be more like the internet itself, where different websites and services built by anyone can connect and interoperate using common protocols?

John: Precisely. The open metaverse vision emphasizes:

• Interoperability: Avatars, digital assets, and identity can move seamlessly between different virtual worlds and experiences, regardless of who created them.
• Decentralization: Potentially leveraging technologies like blockchain for true ownership of digital assets (NFTs) and more distributed governance models.
• Open Standards: Relying on publicly available and collaboratively developed standards, like those the Forum promotes, rather than proprietary technologies.
• Accessibility: Ensuring that users can access the metaverse through a wide range of devices and platforms.

The argument is that an open approach will lead to more innovation, a larger overall market, and a more equitable distribution of value.

Lila: It sounds ideal, but what are the challenges in getting everyone to embrace openness? Surely some big players might still prefer their walled gardens?

John: That’s the ongoing tension. Some companies may indeed try to build dominant, semi-closed ecosystems. The success of the open metaverse depends on several factors:

• Critical Mass: Enough influential companies and developers committing to and building with open standards.
• Compelling Use Cases: Demonstrating that open, interoperable experiences are genuinely better and more attractive to users.
• Developer Buy-in: Making it easy and beneficial for developers to build for an open ecosystem.
• User Demand: Users eventually demanding the freedom and portability that an open metaverse offers.

The Metaverse Standards Forum itself is a testament to the significant industry momentum behind the open approach. The sheer number and diversity of its members indicate a strong desire to avoid a future of fragmented, incompatible metaverses.

Lila: So the Forum isn’t directly “competing” with walled gardens, but by promoting standards, it’s actively building the foundations for an alternative, more open future?

John: Exactly. It’s about providing the tools and the collaborative environment to make the open metaverse a viable and attractive reality. It’s less about direct confrontation and more about enabling a different path forward. The long-term success will likely see a mix, but strong open standards can ensure that even proprietary platforms have robust ways to connect to the wider metaverse, if they choose, or if market pressure demands it.

Risks & Cautions: Navigating the Challenges Ahead

John: While the vision of an open, interoperable metaverse is compelling, and the work of the Metaverse Standards Forum is crucial, it’s important to acknowledge the risks and challenges involved in this massive undertaking.

Lila: That makes sense. Nothing this ambitious is ever straightforward. What are some of the main hurdles we should be aware of?

John: Firstly, there’s the sheer **technical complexity**. As we saw with interoperable anchoring, standardizing even one aspect of the metaverse involves solving many intricate problems. Scaling these solutions to a global level, ensuring performance, and maintaining security across countless interconnected systems is a monumental engineering challenge.

Lila: And I imagine getting so many different companies and organizations, often with competing interests, to agree on technical details can be a slow and arduous process?</p

John: That’s the second major challenge: **achieving consensus and adoption**. Standards are only effective if they are widely adopted. The Forum can facilitate discussion and coordination, but the actual implementation and adherence fall to individual companies. There’s always a risk that dominant players might push for standards that favor their existing technologies, or that adoption might be slow or fragmented, leading to competing “standards” which defeats the purpose.

Lila: What about user-centric risks? With all this shared data and interconnected experiences, I immediately think about privacy and security.</p

John: You’re right to. **Privacy and data security** are paramount concerns. In an interoperable metaverse:

• How is personal data, including biometric data from XR devices, movements, and interactions, protected across different platforms?
• Who owns and controls the vast amounts of data generated in these persistent, shared worlds?
• How do we prevent harassment, misinformation, and other harmful behaviors in these immersive environments, especially when users can move between platforms?
• How is identity managed securely and portably, as discussed in papers like “Framing metaverse identity: A multidimensional framework…”?

These are not just technical problems but also ethical and governance challenges that need careful consideration alongside standards development.

Lila: And what about the risk of **digital divide**? If the metaverse requires expensive hardware or high-speed internet, could it exclude a large portion of the global population?</p

John: That’s another critical concern. Ensuring **accessibility and inclusivity** is vital. Standards can help by promoting compatibility with a wider range of devices, including lower-cost options, and by considering the needs of users with disabilities. However, broader issues of digital infrastructure and economic disparity also need to be addressed by policymakers and society at large to prevent the metaverse from exacerbating existing inequalities.

Lila: Are there also risks related to the **pace of innovation**? If standards take a long time to develop, could they become outdated quickly as technology races ahead?</p

John: Yes, that’s a constant tension. Standards need to be stable enough to build upon, but also flexible enough to evolve with new technologies. This is why the Forum emphasizes pragmatic, action-oriented projects and collaboration with SDOs that have established processes for maintaining and updating standards. It’s a balancing act between providing a solid foundation and not stifling innovation. There’s also the risk of **over-standardization** in areas where innovation is still rapidly occurring and premature standards could lock in suboptimal solutions.

Lila: So, it’s a complex landscape of technical hurdles, coordination challenges, ethical considerations, and ensuring the benefits are widely shared. The Forum certainly has its work cut out for it.

John: Indeed. But acknowledging these risks is the first step to mitigating them. The collaborative nature of the Forum, involving diverse stakeholders, is itself a mechanism for addressing many of these challenges by bringing multiple perspectives to the table.

Expert Opinions / Analyses: Voices from the Field

John: The importance of the Metaverse Standards Forum and its initiatives, like the focus on interoperable anchoring for XR, is widely recognized by experts in the field. There’s a general consensus that without this kind of collaborative effort, the dream of an open metaverse could remain just that – a dream.

Lila: What are some of the common themes in expert opinions regarding the Forum’s work?

John: Many experts highlight the **necessity of cross-industry collaboration**. People like Neil Trevett, President of The Khronos Group (and often Chair of the Metaverse Standards Forum), frequently emphasize that no single company or organization can build the metaverse alone. The Forum is seen as a crucial neutral ground for these vital conversations and coordinations to happen.

Lila: So, the very existence of the Forum is a positive sign for many?

John: Yes, its rapid growth in membership is often cited as evidence of the widespread industry desire for interoperability. Experts also point to the **pragmatic approach** of the Forum – focusing on identifying specific interoperability gaps and then working with established SDOs to address them. This is seen as more effective than trying to create a massive, all-encompassing “metaverse standard” from scratch, which would be an impossibly complex task.

Lila: What about specific initiatives, like the “Towards Interoperable Anchoring for XR” sessions? How are those perceived?

John: Technical deep dives like the webinar on interoperable anchoring, featuring presentations from individuals like Jérémy Lacoche and Jérôme Royan, are generally well-received. They demonstrate a commitment to tackling real, tangible technical problems. Analysts see this focus on foundational elements like spatial anchors as critical. If XR experiences can’t even agree on where virtual objects are located in a shared space, more advanced forms of interoperability become much harder to achieve. The emphasis on “interoperable anchoring” in Forum communications and events (as seen in their X/Twitter feed and YouTube channel) underscores its perceived importance.

Lila: Are there any critical perspectives or cautionary notes from experts, even if they are generally supportive?

John: Of course. Some experts caution that while the Forum is a great start, **real progress depends on the willingness of major platform owners to genuinely embrace openness**, even if it impacts their short-term business models. There’s also the challenge of **speed and relevance** – standards bodies can sometimes move slowly, and there’s a need to ensure that the standards developed are timely and address the most pressing needs of the rapidly evolving XR and metaverse industries. Others might point to the need for more robust frameworks for **ethics, privacy, and governance** to be developed in parallel with technical standards.

Lila: So, the overall sentiment is positive and hopeful, but with a healthy dose of realism about the challenges ahead?

John: Precisely. Experts see the Metaverse Standards Forum not as a silver bullet, but as an essential catalyst and coordinating force. Its success will be measured by the tangible interoperability that emerges in the market, enabling developers to create richer, more connected experiences and giving users more freedom and choice in how they engage with the metaverse. The engagement of various SDOs, like ETSI hosting related webinars, further signals a broad-based effort.

Latest News & Roadmap: What’s Happening Now and Next?

John: The Metaverse Standards Forum is a dynamic entity, with ongoing activities and a forward-looking perspective. Keeping an eye on their announcements is key to understanding the evolving landscape of metaverse interoperability.

Lila: You mentioned the “Towards Interoperable Anchoring for XR” webinar that took place on April 30, 2025. What other kinds of recent activities or news have come from the Forum?

John: The Forum regularly hosts these “Special SDO Sessions” which are a cornerstone of their practical work. These sessions, often highlighted on their X (formerly Twitter) account (@Metaverse_Forum) and their official website, bring together experts to present and discuss specific standardization challenges and proposals. For example, there was another session mentioned around January 9, 2025, also focusing on interoperable anchoring for XR, indicating this is a sustained area of effort.

Lila: So, these sessions are where a lot of the detailed groundwork happens? Are the outcomes or presentations from these sessions usually made public?

John: Often, yes. The Forum aims for transparency. Summaries, presentations, or recordings are frequently made available on their website or YouTube channel. This allows the broader community to stay informed and even contribute to the discussions. For instance, the focus on “interoperable anchoring for XR” seems to be a recurring theme, with multiple events and discussions pointing towards its centrality in their current efforts.

Lila: What about their roadmap? Does the Forum publish a long-term plan of what areas they’ll tackle next?

John: The Forum’s roadmap is typically driven by the needs and priorities identified by its members and the various working groups focusing on specific “Domains of Interest.” While they might not publish a rigid multi-year plan, their activities and the topics of their Special SDO Sessions provide strong indicators of current priorities. Areas that consistently see activity include:

• 3D Asset Interoperability: Ensuring 3D models, textures, and animations can be consistently rendered and used across platforms.
• Avatar Interoperability: Defining standards for portable, expressive avatars.
• Spatial Computing: Including the ongoing work on interoperable anchoring.
• Identity and Privacy: Exploring how user identity can be managed securely and portably.
• World Description / Scene Representation: How to describe virtual environments so they can be understood by different systems.

New working groups or exploratory groups may also be formed as new challenges and opportunities arise.

Lila: So, it’s more of an agile, responsive approach rather than a fixed, long-term blueprint?

John: Exactly. The metaverse space is evolving so rapidly that a highly rigid roadmap could quickly become outdated. The Forum’s structure allows it to adapt to emerging needs. For example, if a new breakthrough technology gains traction, or a new interoperability challenge becomes apparent, the members can propose and initiate work in that area. Their goal is to “foster interoperability standards,” which means they need to be responsive to where those standards are most needed.

Lila: How can our readers stay updated on the Forum’s latest news and roadmap developments?

John: The best resources are the Metaverse Standards Forum’s official website (metaverse-standards.org), their X/Twitter feed (@Metaverse_Forum), and their LinkedIn page. These channels provide announcements about upcoming events, new members, publications, and progress from the working groups. For those deeply interested in the technical details, attending or reviewing the materials from their Special SDO Sessions and webinars is highly recommended.

FAQ: Answering Your Questions

Lila: This has been incredibly informative, John. I bet our readers have a lot of questions. How about we tackle some common ones?

John: An excellent idea, Lila. Let’s clarify some key points.

Lila: Okay, first up: What exactly *is* the Metaverse in simple terms? Everyone seems to have a slightly different definition.

John: That’s true, it’s an evolving concept. At its core, the Metaverse refers to a vision of a future internet: a persistent, shared, 3D virtual world or worlds that are interconnected. Think of it as moving from browsing 2D web pages to *experiencing* and *participating* in immersive 3D environments. It’s expected to blend aspects of social media, online gaming, augmented reality, virtual reality, and potentially even cryptocurrencies and digital economies.

Lila: Next: Why is “interoperability” so important for the Metaverse? Can’t we just have different cool virtual worlds that stand alone?

John: We could, but that would be like having thousands of different internets that can’t talk to each other. Interoperability is crucial because it allows for:

• User Freedom: Take your avatar, digital items, and social connections from one virtual world to another.
• Economic Growth: A larger, interconnected market for digital assets and services.
• Innovation: Developers can build experiences that span multiple platforms, rather than being locked into one.
• Network Effects: The value of the metaverse increases as more people and services connect to it, just like the internet.
  Without it, we’d have a fragmented collection of walled gardens, limiting user choice and overall potential.

Lila: Okay, here’s one about the Forum itself: Is the Metaverse Standards Forum creating its own standards?

John: Not directly. The Metaverse Standards Forum is not a Standards Developing Organization (SDO) in itself. Its role is to provide a venue for cooperation and coordination *between* existing SDOs and companies. It helps identify areas where standards are needed, facilitates discussions, and coordinates efforts to foster the development of those standards within the appropriate SDOs. Think of it as an orchestrator or a facilitator, rather than a primary author of standards documents.

Lila: This one’s about XR: What’s the difference between VR, AR, and MR again?

John:

• Virtual Reality (VR): Completely immerses you in a fully digital environment, typically using a headset that blocks out the real world. You are ‘transported’ to another place.
• Augmented Reality (AR): Overlays digital information or virtual objects onto your view of the real world, usually through a smartphone screen or smart glasses. The digital elements augment your existing reality.
• Mixed Reality (MR): A more advanced form of AR where digital objects are not just overlaid but can interact with the real world in a spatially aware way. For example, a virtual ball could bounce off a real table. XR (Extended Reality) is the umbrella term for all three.

Lila: We talked a lot about “anchors.” So, what is an “anchor” in XR, and why does it need to be “interoperable”?

John: An “anchor” in XR is a piece of data that fixes a virtual object’s position and orientation in a specific location, either relative to the real world (in AR/MR) or within a persistent virtual space. It’s like a digital pin holding something in place.
“Interoperable” anchoring means that these anchors can be understood and used consistently across different XR devices, applications, and platforms. If anchors aren’t interoperable, you and I could be in the same room looking at the same “spot,” but a virtual object I place there might appear in a different location for you, or not at all, if we’re using different systems. This is critical for shared, collaborative XR experiences.

Lila: Who can join the Metaverse Standards Forum? Is it only for big companies?

John: No, membership is open to any organization, including companies, standards organizations, industry associations, and academic institutions that are willing to participate and contribute to the Forum’s mission. There’s no fee to join, which encourages broad participation. The goal is to bring together a diverse range of stakeholders to ensure the resulting standards are robust and widely applicable.

Lila: How will the Metaverse Standards Forum address privacy and security concerns?

John: While the Forum’s primary focus is on technical interoperability, discussions around privacy, security, and ethical considerations are integral. These aspects are often addressed within specific domain working groups (e.g., related to Identity or User Safety). The Forum also collaborates with SDOs that have expertise in security standards. However, it’s important to note that creating comprehensive solutions for privacy and security in the metaverse will require efforts beyond just technical standards, involving legal frameworks and platform policies too.

Lila: When can we expect to see the “Metaverse” fully realized, thanks to these standards?

John: That’s the billion-dollar question! Building the full vision of the metaverse is a long-term endeavor, likely spanning many years, if not decades. The development and adoption of standards is an ongoing process. We’re already seeing early forms of metaverse-like experiences and increasing interoperability in certain areas (like 3D asset formats with glTF). The work of the Metaverse Standards Forum aims to accelerate this, but a “fully realized” metaverse, as envisioned by futurists, is still some way off. It will be an evolution, not an overnight revolution.

Lila: One last one: Where can I learn more about the “Towards Interoperable Anchoring for XR” initiative specifically?

John: The best places would be the Metaverse Standards Forum’s official website (metaverse-standards.org), particularly their news, blog, or events sections. They often post summaries, recordings, or presentation materials from their Special SDO Sessions and webinars. Their X/Twitter account (@Metaverse_Forum) and YouTube channel are also good resources for updates on such initiatives. Searching for “Metaverse Standards Forum Interoperable Anchoring” will likely bring up the latest public information and related discussions.

Related Links

John: For those who want to delve deeper, here are some valuable resources:

• Metaverse Standards Forum Official Website: metaverse-standards.org
• Metaverse Standards Forum on X (Twitter): @Metaverse_Forum
• Metaverse Standards Forum on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/metaverse-standards-forum
• Metaverse Standards Forum YouTube Channel: youtube.com/@metaversestandardsforum/videos (Check for recordings of sessions like “Towards Interoperable Anchoring for XR”)
• The Khronos Group: khronos.org (Key SDO for many open standards relevant to the metaverse, like OpenXR and glTF)
• ETSI Events (related to XR): etsi.org/events (For broader context on standards development in related technologies)

Lila: Thanks, John. This has been a comprehensive look at a complex but incredibly important topic. It’s clear that building an open and interoperable metaverse is a collaborative journey, and the Metaverse Standards Forum is playing a vital role in charting the course, especially with crucial work like defining interoperable anchoring for XR.

John: Indeed, Lila. The path to a truly open metaverse is paved with such foundational efforts. It requires patience, collaboration, and a shared vision. The focus on pragmatic standards for elements like XR anchoring is exactly what’s needed to turn that vision into a functional reality, one interoperable piece at a time.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice or an endorsement of any specific technology or organization. Readers are encouraged to Do Your Own Research (DYOR) before making any decisions related to the topics discussed.

Metaverse, XR, Interoperability, Metaverse Standards Forum, Digital Anchoring

“`