Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics

[Suzy Deffeyes <[e-mail]>]

re: other standards.... Discussion of other standards that exist in this
area is totally appropriate, if a good match for a particular area of the
standard already exists and has a community of tools and support for it, we
should consider adopting it.

re: how to proceed. It does feel like there are a lot of conversations in
the MMOX group that are diving into minute detail, and I still feel that
there are widely differing ideas on what the word Interoperability means.
We don't all have to have an identical view on what Interoperability means.

I think it would help us to define things in terms of the Use Cases we want
to support. Use Cases could be defined in terms of functionality,
capability, and services available for an end user ( end loser? :-).

Some examples of Use Cases:
1. User maintains same identity, and moves between grids (should define the
word grid), there is no concept of inventory items having "restrictions" on
them
2. Same as 1, but with full up "Annie Get Your Gun" policy and mechanisms in
place for inventory item permissions
3. End users with different viewer technologies collaborate in a shared
space. The shared space contains a chair that is simulated by Virtual World
A and a motorcycle simulated by Virtual Worlds B
4.....
5....

re: proprietary... I tend to care about OLIVE because it is outside our
little SL/OS teleport bubble. They have different Use Cases that are
important to them, and might be interesting to see where we can have some
overlap. Perhaps in the overlap areas, a proprietary vendor might feel the
benefit of adding their own proposal outweighs the benefits of staying
proprietary.

Suzy Deffeyes
Pixel Gausman
IBM

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> so... what started as a pleasant little proposal to take our (the awg's)
> pleasant little protocol (ogp) kick it around in public (the mmox mailing
> list) and potentially generate some RFCs from it seems to have spawned a
> number of discussions. _all_ of the discussions are interesting, but perhaps
> not all of them are germane to the proposed task.
>
> so i ask.. is it appropriate to limit the discussion here to the MMOX
> Charter, LLSD, OGP and HyperGrid with occasional reference to the IETF IPR
> Disclosure Policy?
>
> to be sure... we _are_ in the stage where the charter is important to
> discuss... but i'm just wondering... and these questions are here to spark
> _conversation_, not radical debate. there are rational answers, pro and con,
> to each of these questions and teasing them out is important...
>        * why would we care about HLA, DIS or IEEE-1278? they're already
> standardized. (though understanding that the structure of something like OGP
> differs from the structure of these protocols _is_ important.)
>        * why do we care about OLIVE, which is a proprietary protocol with a
> single implementation?
>        * why do we care about MXP whose apparent dependence on another
> protocol with unclear IPR encumbrance gives some people on this list the
> willies.
>
> so the questions i pose are...
>        * pursuit of which of these topics brings us to our goal of an
> interoperable virtual worlds?
>        * what does it mean to be interoperable?
>        * must we have early agreement on all topics before we move forward
> with any component?
>
> * OGP (Open Grid Protocol)
>        * should OGP be named something else?
>        * how do we do the event queue? (COMET? Bayeux? RHTTP? Long Poll?)
>        * where do we stuff permissions in this model?
>        * OGP/Teleport is not HyperGrid
> * LLSD
>        * why is LLSD different from XDR? ASN.1? Google ProtocolBuffers?
>        * 128 bit integers? good enough?
>        * should LLSD be named something else?
>        * XML serialization
>                * maps are too much like apple plists in the XML
> serialization.
> * MMOX Charter
>        * we should rename everything
>        * we should abandon interoperability in favor of general agreement
> of model
> * IETF
> * Virtual Worlds in General
>        * Previously Established Protocols
>                * HLA, DIS, IEEE-1278 and related protocols
>                * OLIVE
>                * MXP?
>                * VRML
>        * Representation of virtual objects
>                * meshes vs. prims
>                * interaction models for virtual objects
>        * Intellectual Property Regimes for Virtual Worlds
>                * Creative Commons (awesome gateway to free culture or the
> ultimate embodiment of evil in the noosphere?)
>                * DRM (the only way i'll trust you with my content or the
> ultimate embodiment of evil in the noosphere?)
>        * permissions regime
>                * MPEG-21?
>                * must we mandate the SL-style c/m/t permission?
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>