Re: [ogpx] Next Steps for OGPX WG Charter

[David W Levine <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote on 08/01/2009 12:44:14 AM:

> Morgaine <[e-mail]> 
> Sent by: [e-mail]
>
> One of the best ways of tackling this is to directly ask who it 
> actually applies to.  What kinds of worlds could interoperate through 
OGP?
> 
> This question is often answered in an informal way:  "OGP allows 
> interoperation between SL-like worlds."  That answer is fair enough 
> when given loosely and informally, but it is not good enough for an 
> IETF spec, for obvious reasons.  We may know what we mean, 
> informally, but we need a more objective way of expressing it, so 
> that people without any background in Second Life can still find it 
> precise and informative.
> 
> I would like to propose that a different informal answer is 
> appropriate here, an answer which, while equally simple, is 
> enormously more embracing while still being just as concise and 
> specific and inherently implementable:

> "OGP allows interoperation between any virtual worlds that implement
> the protocol."
> 
> This almost sounds recursive, but it is not:  it makes it clear that
> it doesn't matter how different and divergent the worlds may be, 
> they can still interoperate through OGP as long as they implement 
> that common protocol.  It no longer mentions Second Life.  It does 
> not refer to a totally fictitious unit of "the world".  It does not 
> require interoperating worlds to be clones, either implicitly or 
> explicitly.  It clearly states that the ONLY requirement for interop
> is implementing this one protocol, or suite.
> 
> In other words, it avoids being prescriptive about worlds, and it 
> lets adherence to the protocol define the universe of interop.
> 

> 
> 
> Morgaine.
> 
Please note that the "constraint" language in the charter is about the 
the requirements the specifications address.  If you look at the 
constraint
language in the most recent draft, while it suffers from requiring 
understanding
a lot of terms in the space, it does permit a pretty  easy decision as to 
whether
a requirement is within the remit of the working group. The feedback from 
the 
BOF was not that the constraints are wrong, but that they are hard to 
understand. 

We're looking for edits and new language which can be more readily 
understood, but does not
change the basic nature of the constraints. 


- David Levine
~ Zha Ewry ISL