Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

[Charles Krinke <[e-mail]>]

I would suppose we can also consider "Landmark" in a different sense in that
objects themselves in many virtual worlds can run scripts. That means that
objects can communicate to external web servers or other virtual worlds, so
that a "wormhole" or "stargate" or "fargate" becomes practical for interop.

I can easily see some interop going on as "wormholes" or "fargates" with
scripted objects communicating with either external web servers or other
virtual worlds.

This avenue of interop is interesting in itself as it means no changes to
the underlying VW architecture, but rather, the use of "scripted objects" as
"Landmarks"

Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Dan Olivares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Heh,
>
> Debating the word landmark seems a little silly.   Call it 3D
> hyperlink, or..    portal link..  or whatever :)  The point is that
> you make an action using it :).  Generally..  I use the term Landmark
> to refer to objects along the way that I can recognize to help me get
> somewhere.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:35 PM, 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmox mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>



-- 
Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director