Re: [mmox] The Story So Far...

[Jesrad <[e-mail]>]

Well, I can imagine a closed VW proxying alternate/degraded models in
lieu of the actual 3D models for its internally-hosted objects and
avatars, and distorting inworld sound/video streams, so as to prevent
copyright infringement in visiting non-trusted VWs, but then the
entire point of interoperability would be lost. I cannot find much
appeal in driving a gray sphere with an hovertext reading "This would
look like a sports car if you subscribed" in lieu of the actual car
model.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Kajikawa Jeremy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Is this approach where each system can provide "own proxy" for
>  the non-native clients that can enter ?
>
> This would allow the commercial systems to remain closed while
>  also supporting the "open" clients as well.
>
> But then there is the whole "mind share war" between closed and
>  open systems as it is,  and I think the open systems are going to
>  breach and break the closed systems eventually.
>
> but thats just my own reading of the following...
>
> How accurate is my reading?
>
> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 10:28 +0100, Jesrad wrote:
>> The approach used in IEEE 1278 seems to differ radically from the
>> function OGP is assumed to permit, from a glance: as you said it lets
>> otherwise incompatible domains of simulation (call them grids)
>> exchange just the amount and type of information needed to remain
>> consistent between themselves.
>>
>> Transposed to a VW, this would mean you can use the SL client to
>> connect to an SL grid, then your current simulator connects you
>> through to other environments (WoW, Solipsis, etc.) and does the
>> "translation". If the "foreign" domain/grid does not support some
>> Agent Domain services or something else, then the "local" domain can
>> then provide its own as a substitute, while the client is tasked with
>> interpreting any native data that rides through (like 3D
>> representation and sound format).
>>
>> Is it right ? Maybe detailing a specific example would help pointing
>> out what should be and shouldn't be in such a protocol. (We're trying
>> to minimize the amount or complexity of translation required both at
>> the gateway and the client, aren't we ?)
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Dan Olivares wrote:
>> >>
>> >> objection that I've heard so far is that it requires a lot more work
>> >> (service calls?) to develop a shared scene graph and requires a
>> >> significant more amount of trust then an A-->B teleport does.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There is no shared scene graph. Each server simulates "its" objects, and
>> > translates from the "interop" protocol to its internal system at the
>> > gateway. Think of it like a more modern version of IEEE 1278 (which has been
>> > a great success as far as interoperable distributed simulation goes).
>> >
>> > Sincerely,
>> >
>> > jw
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > mmox mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmox mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>