Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> What if the destination is a for-profit world, and the reason you could get
> there in the first place was that some paying customer invited you? Then
> when you want to return, there is no paying customer to share the "cost"
> (loosely defined).



We're only supplying a control mechanism for the movement between worlds.  I
think it's far beyond our remit to get involved in costs or cost
distribution, although teleport grant or denial might validly be considered
part of the "mechanism" of teleport.

>
>
> Do we really want to use the term "landmark" in interop speak? That sounds
> a little too SL specific? Else, would you define what a "landmark" really
> means?
>


The term "landmark" is in extremely wide use in many applications that
involve maps or addresses, as well as in real life, so it's certainly not
SL-specific.  Since we haven't yet tied down its meaning for interop (if
any), for now it probably just means "address within a world" for us.

Addresses we can certainly expect to be transportable (as readable N-tuples
which have meaning only within their respective worlds), but how addresses
are presented in any given world is very world-specific.  For example, in SL
a "landmark" is a special inventory item which can be placed in objects and
manipulated by scripts, but which does not have in-world visibility.  That
sounds too architecture-specific for an object in an interop protocol, it
seems to me.  Perhaps plain addresses will be sufficient at the protocol
level.


Morgaine.








On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for referencing that use case. It's interesting that the answer to
> those questions hasn't actually been posted yet...
>
> What if the destination is a for-profit world, and the reason you could get
> there in the first place was that some paying customer invited you? Then
> when you want to return, there is no paying customer to share the "cost"
> (loosely defined).
>
> Do we really want to use the term "landmark" in interop speak? That sounds
> a little too SL specific? Else, would you define what a "landmark" really
> means?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
>
> Morgaine wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/30 Kari Lippert <[e-mail] <mailto:
>> [e-mail]>>
>>
>>
>>    I understand "teleport" (and believe if you can define it well
>>    enough, smart people can make it so) but it leaves me asking why?
>>    Why would a user desire to "teleport" from one VWE to another?
>>
>>
>>
>> Given this interop scenario <
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01114.html>, which
>> reflects the normal way in which humans organize their lives around travel
>> between different places, a reasonable answer to your question is probably
>> that our various forms of inter-VW travel (continguous handover, portal
>> crossings, and discontiguous transitions) are a natural extrapolation of our
>> everyday experience.
>>
>> In the real world, we're rather limited in the methods by which we can
>> move between distant lands.  The nearest thing to an instantaneous teleport
>> between London and Boston is to get on a jet plane, go to sleep for several
>> hours, and wake up in a different place.  Virtual worlds are of course much
>> more flexible, so because we /can/ teleport instantaneously, we /do/.  It's
>> only one of several methods, though.
>>
>> Of course, instantaneous travel is not to everyone's taste, but nor is
>> lengthy and laborious contiguous travel to everyone's taste.  In any case,
>> VWs differ in their topological connectivity to other worlds and therefore
>> no single approach is possible, nor desireable.
>>
>> Fortunately, these are matters of policy, whereas our interests here is
>> providing mechanisms that can support a wide range of policies.  The three
>> underlying components of teleport <
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01208.html> are
>> applicable to a very wide range of VWs indeed.
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/3/30 Kari Lippert <[e-mail] <mailto:
>> [e-mail]>>
>>
>>    <clearing throat>
>>
>>    I've been lurking for some time now and reading and trying to
>>    understand the basic user requirement that is driving this work. I
>>    have to admit this is as close as I've seen.
>>
>>    I understand "teleport" (and believe if you can define it well
>>    enough, smart people can make it so) but it leaves me asking why?
>>    Why would a user desire to "teleport" from one VWE to another? The
>>    answer to this will, I believe, help you focus on what needs to be
>>    included in the definition of what it means to "teleport", and
>>    what can be safely set aside for the moment.
>>
>>    Kari
>>
>>    2009/3/30 James Stallings II <[e-mail]
>>    <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        On what would seem to be the more mainstream topic of the
>>        use-case, I think Jon left off perhaps the most fundamental
>>        interop capability of all from his list: that of exchange of
>>        text communications ("chat") between endusers. Without this,
>>        there really isnt any advantage in doing the three things he
>>        lists; but as soon as user<->user communications across
>>        diverse worlds is possible, the other three things he lists
>>        immediately begin to produce value for the endusers of said
>>        divergent worlds.
>>
>>
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    mmox mailing list
>>    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>>
>>
>>
>