Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

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