Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

["Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[e-mail]>]

Okay... if we want to get pedantic, then let's get pedantic.

	* 47 CFR 51.3 defines interoperability as "the ability of two or more  
facilities, or networks, to be connected, to exchange information, and  
to use the information that has been exchanged."

	* 17 USCS § 1201 describes interoperability as "means the ability of  
computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs  
mutually to use the information which has been exchanged."

	* 44 USCS § 3601 describes interoperability as "the ability of  
different operating and software systems, applications, and services  
to communicate and exchange data in an accurate, effective, and  
consistent manner."

	* The IEEE has used "the ability of two or more systems or components  
to exchange information and to use the information that has been  
exchanged." as the definition of the term.

I would suggest that we all might be using the term incorrectly as the  
definitions above imply an exchange of information; that is,  
information flows between two facilities, networks, computer programs,  
operating systems, applications, services, systems or components.

Perhaps it is more appropriate to say:

	* "Second Life (as a service) has demonstrated interoperability with  
an instance of OpenSim using a version of the OGP protocol." or
	* "sim3078.aditi.lindenlab.com has demonstrated interoperability with  
ec2-XXX-XXX-XXX-XXX.compute-1.amazonaws.com using a version of the OGP  
protocol." or
	* "Second Life server version 1.22 (as a software system) has  
demonstrated interoperability with a version of OpenSim."

But I would defend our previous usage of the term to describe OGP as  
an "interoperability protocol" because, in fact, there are software  
systems (Second Life and OpenSim) which use it to exchange information  
which is used by either system.

I believe the term you're looking for, given your usage is  
"universality." And no, OGP does not provide universality. OGP does  
not allow WoW to talk with Star Wars Galaxies or There.Com or a  
Forterra simulation. It also doesn't solve world hunger or global  
warming. But then again, OGP was not intended to provide that kind of  
universality (or to solve world hunger.) And I would suggest that  
neither LESS nor DIS nor HLA were designed for universality either. I  
further believe that universality is not a feature of a protocol, but  
of markets, products and possibly networks.

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Apr 1, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Jon Watte wrote:

> Charles Krinke wrote:
>> To me, interop implies a full handoff of an avatar from one virtual  
>> world to another.
>
> Is it "virtual worlds interop" if there aren't multiple virtual  
> worlds interoperating involved on an ongoing basis?
> It sounds like you're describing something like "avatar interop," to  
> me.
>
> It may sound pedantic, but I do think it's important to put as  
> unambiguous labels on what we discuss as possible, so that we don't  
> end up making different assumptions without realizing it, and ending  
> up in confusion and discord.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>