Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jwatte-mmox-use-cases-00

"  The point is
   that interoperability does not require the source and the destination
   to be from the same technology family, use the same simulation
   technology, or even that the clients must understand protocols other
   than those native to the respective simulation system."

I don't understand how most of those use cases can be managed if
the source & destination have different simulation models, skeleton
structions, scripting languages, physics models, rendering engines,
etc.

>   The benefit is that users of different virtual worlds can invite and
>  communicate with each other using the virtual world metaphore,
>   regardless of the particular virtual world technology used for their
>   "home base" virtual world.

I think this is "if you can do A, then you can do A". Why would anyone
 want to do that, and how would it help them?

In section 2.2.1, the integration of a "plant" and a "city" requires
so many seams to be knit, I wonder how feasible it really is. Even
between virtual worlds with the same underlying infrastructure, welding
a "building" into a city requires a lot of work aligning, wouldn't it?

Just wondering how practical these use cases are.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net