Re: [mmox] Loosely Coupled Virtual Worlds

["Mystical Demina" <[e-mail]>]

But not all inventories may originate from a virtual world.

 

Or be from one virtual world.

 

Just trying to open up what seems to be an assumed position.

 

The current model also limits content providers and adds a lot of overhead
and cost to content delivery and updates.  For instance if I am a content
provider will we require my customers to first upload their inventory into a
specific grid before it can be used.  What about updates and fixed?  Would
be much each if I simply upload my fix and all references to it are able to
get the updated instead of this model in SecondLife where I have to
distribute my product to every person that buys for them to rez it again,
remove the old, all that kind of stuff.   And then there is the content of
dynamic content that will be changing as part of the service that is
provided.  Granted some of that may be done with scripting but I can see
models where my content is specific to a user, to time a day, to other
factors and different content would be provided by the same request for the
inventory item.

 

I respect your experience with OpenSim but having 15 years of internet
experience and 27 years of software industry experience and I believe Darwin
always wins in the end and to me that will be what ever the least costly,
easiest model, quickest to implement solution that will ultimately be the
direction.  I would suggest the current direction isn't really addressing
the cost and management of content and will not scale to 1000s of grids.

 

Kevin Tweedy

SL: Mystical Demain

 

  _____  

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Charles Krinke
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:28 PM
To: Mystical Demina
Cc: MMOX-IETF
Subject: Re: [mmox] Loosely Coupled Virtual Worlds

 

We have had this discussion on and off for a couple of years now on OpenSim
regarding where objects should be stored.

In general, it is argued that objects unique to an avatar are best stored in
an avatar-unique manner, be that a home grid, a home region, or a USB thumb
drive.

But, also in general, it is argued that objects that need to be interacted
with by *other* then the owner, need to be stored in a manner that allows
this interaction.

>From the OpenSim viewpoint, we have headed down a hybrid approach for grid
objects or assets. Some assets are stored on the local region hard disk,
some are stored on a gridserver complex if this region is part of a grid.

>From the interop viewpoint, I would think each virtual world, or
instantiation of a software that supports a virtual world would need to deal
with this with their own vision in mind. I would not presume to tell
SecondLife how they should or should not store objects and assets. For the
purpose of this group, I would tend to focus on how we may interact with
other existing virtual worlds implementations such as chat, teleport,
presence and devolve the asset storage for the most part back to the
architecture making up the virtual world.

Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director

2009/3/27 Mystical Demina <[e-mail]>

I just wanted to add I can see the agent being on the same computer that is
running the rendering which would typically being a client which would know
how to pass any needed references to one ore more locations inventory could
be utilized from, including my local disk.  Although not sure why the
simulator would need access to inventory, seems this agent will handle any
request for a particular object and provide it to the simulator which would
allow inventory to come from any other computer in the world.

 

Or this agent may be a proxy for my client who would run on a server I am
logged into and handle these negotiations.

 

It is my opinion we need to move past the idea of the inventory being
something owned by a grid and more to a source of an objects that I have
access to that can be used into a simulator.  This object(s) could be copied
and cached into the simulator or it could be a proxy, and to some degree at
least some if it probably need to be, it can be a shell of the object that
is actually instantiated somewhere else and provided once or updated in a
steam of information that could be multiple times a second or long term like
daily or more; or event driven.

 

Some thoughts.

 

Kevin Tweedy

SL: Mystical Demina

 

 

  _____  

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Charles Krinke
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Hurliman, John


Cc: MMOX-IETF
Subject: Re: [mmox] Loosely Coupled Virtual Worlds

 

I think what is happening here is we have half of a solution that needs a
bit more symmetry. 

A citizen from a SecondLife grid can certainly connect today to an OpenSim
grid or standalone using the Agent Domain notion. But, a citizen from an
OpenSim grid such as OSGrid cannot cannot to a SecondLife grid in a
symmetrical fashion as there is no Agent Domain notion in OpenSim.

I look at this and think more along the lines of passports and border
crossings between virtual countries. 

Using this metaphor, there needs to be a handoff of an avatar from one grid
to another grid for simulation. Now, I can see some notions of a circuit
connected back to ones home grid for certain authentication and object
inventory issues, but in general this is a border crossing between
countries.

When I mean symmetry, I also mean that a citizen of a SecondLife grid may
enter a region on OSGrid, but similarly, I would expect a citizen of OSGrid
to be able to enter a SecondLife grid. Else this interoperability is one way
and not advantageous to both parties.

Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Hurliman, John <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>Morgaine
>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:11 AM
>To: Jason Giglio
>Cc: MMOX-IETF
>Subject: Re: [mmox] Loosely Coupled Virtual Worlds
>
>On 2009/3/25, Jason Giglio <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>       http://www.meerkatviewer.org/whitepaper.pdf
>       http://www.meerkatviewer.org/whitepaper.odt
>
>
>
>
>The above document seems remarkably insightful on various fronts:
>

...
>
>*      Indirectly, it highlights that the Agent Domain model does not

>have a solution to the problem of accessing worlds with which there is
>no trust agreement.  People will want to enter arbitrary worlds, and
>therefore that restriction is inadequate.
>*      There will be millions of worlds in an Internet-scale metaverse,
>which makes the concept of interop through trust agreements far too
>narrow.  Trust loses its meaning entirely when scaled to millions,
>becoming mere paperwork or "security theater".

This is, in my opinion, the fundamental flaw in OGP. Explicit trust maps
(whitelists) work great when IBM wants to define policy to connect to the
Linden Lab grid, but has no meaning and no hope of scaling when you talk
about defining trust for millions of simulation grids and millions (or at
least thousands) of identity providers. This is the primary reason that
Intel and many members of the OpenSimulator/OpenMetaverse community have not
considered OGP as a strong proposal for virtual world interoperability. If
this understanding is not accurate, it would be helpful if an OGP author
could step in and clear up the confusion.

John

_______________________________________________
mmox mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox




-- 
Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director


_______________________________________________
mmox mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox




-- 
Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director