Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

["Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[e-mail]>]

so maybe we might say "virtual world avatar interop" or "virtual world  
event stream interop"?

but not say "virtual world interop" 'cause it's too vague?

On Apr 1, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Jon Watte wrote:

> Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) wrote:
>> I believe the term you're looking for, given your usage is  
>> "universality." And no, OGP does not provide universality. OGP
>
>>>
>>> It may sound pedantic, but I do think it's important to put as  
>>> unambiguous labels on what we discuss as possible, so that we  
>>> don't end up making different assumptions without realizing it,  
>>> and ending up in confusion and discord.
>
> I'm sorry: I think you misunderstood what I was saying and took it  
> the wrong way. The word "interop" is clearly correct, and I am not  
> arguing against that. My argument is against labeling anything and  
> everything as "virtual world interop." As we've seen, it's a term  
> that is so broad as to be almost meaningless. I'm merely arguing for  
> specificity.
>
> The proposal is to be more detailed about what kind of interop we're  
> talking about in any particular case. For example, there might be  
> VoIP interop, or avatar interop, or authentication interop, or  
> simulation interop, or service brokerage interop, or online status  
> interop, or text chat interop. Those are all forms of interop  
> necessary to accomplish "full virtual world interop." The confusion  
> arises when someone talks about "virtual worlds interop" but is  
> actually only discussing one piece. In my opinion, it would be more  
> accurate, and help everybody, to clearly specify the piece you're  
> talking about.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>