Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>