Re: [mmox] what does it mean to be interoperable?

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) wrote:
> 4. interoperability means some virtual worlds use precisely the same 
> protocol(s) and all virtual worlds represent data in formats 
> understandable by all other virtual worlds, without a universal client.
>

I would add option 4.5:

4.5: interoperability means all virtual worlds understand a precise set 
of protocols and all virtual worlds understand data represented in a 
common set of formats, without a universal client.

That may be what you meant, but the way you wrote it, it sounds like it 
dictates implementation details, which I think we should stay away from.

>
> so... i recommend that if we (as a group) wanted to pursue option-5.. 
> we also explicitly define what goes in an "interoperability profile." 
> that way you could get the benefit of having a relatively stable 
> protocol that could be targeted by open source developers which could 
> be used by VW operators to help make client / server apps.

I think we need to pursue 4.5, for exactly the reason you're suggesting: 
we want to avoid what you call "MOSS-like" behavior: two systems that 
claim to be interoperable, can't actually interoperate.

Sincerely,

jw