Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for your constructive answer! See below.

Mark Lentczner wrote:
>> Do you seriously think it's a good idea to specify all the minutiae 
>> of how a server and client interact, as a standard protocol?
> Yes.
> Telnet, FTP, IMAP & 2822, HTTP & HTML, XMPP, to name a few past examples.
>

None of which deal with real-time synchronous interaction (except XMPP 
-- but it turns out that AIM, MSN and Yahoo have overwhelming majority 
in that business). In real-time, synchronous interaction systems (cell 
phones, web video, etc) it doesn't seem like vendors settle on a single 
standard. Note that HTTP/HTML is a much simpler model than a virtual 
world, by a factor of one or even two orders of magnitude.


>> What about objects you want to use cross worlds; are you saying you 
>> also want to specify the exact runtime requirements for objects 
>> (scripting language, physics interface, etc)?
> Yes.
> 2822 & MIME, HTML & CSS & JavaScript, ODF to name a few past examples.
>

But objects run code. I think server-side technologies like J2EE, 
ASP.NET, LAMP (which P?), WebLogic, Domino etc are a much closer analog 
to running virtual world objects. Web technology languages have not 
converged on a single language/technology. I don't think virtual world 
simulation will, either. However, I strongly believe we need to support 
mash-ups of worlds.

>> I believe that the real enabler of interop is to be able to merge the 
>> simulations of different worlds
> Ah - here we disagree.  I think this is a non-starter for the vast 
> majority of users and use cases. Whereas I think users really care 
> about using a single client, and a single virtual identity to roam the 
> wide-open spaces of the metaverse.
>

If you look closely at the model of LESS (which uses mash-ups of 
multiple worlds), the user gets exactly that capability, including only 
having to worry about a single client -- but actually gets a lot more, 
such as the ability to interact with objects and users from multiple 
different systems at the same time.

Now, considering the cost of re-tooling an entire client/server chain, I 
don't think virtual world vendors will adopt a single system. You seem 
to think differently. Or, to phrase it another way, it seems as if I'm 
arguing for a system that lets diverse technologies solve the different 
problems they each are good at, and let them talk to each other. You 
seem to be arguing for everyone doing things the same way -- and, I 
would presume, preferably the Second Life way.

In my opinion, if you want interoperability across technologies, forcing 
everyone to do everything a single way is unlikely to gain traction 
among other vendors. If all you want is interoperability across systems 
that already do things the same way (like Second Life / OpenSim), then 
doing it your way makes sense. That's why I think that getting the 
charter right is important -- either we work on a system that truly 
enables cross-technology interoperability and integration, or we (or, 
rather, you) work on a system that is only suitable for OpenSim and 
Second Life derived technology. Whichever we do, it ought to be clearly 
stated in the charter, to avoid confusion.

Sincerely,

jw