Re: [ogpx] one virtual world, or many?

[Charles Krinke <[e-mail]>]

I'm confused with all that is going on and need to ask my two main questions again.

"Are we considering interop with virtual worlds running OpenSim which do not run agent domains but rather a similar, but not quite identical notion we call UGAIM (User, Grid, Asset, Inventory, Messaging) servers?"

"Are we considering a full handoff? That is, a user on an OpenSim grid may teleport to a SecondLife grid and retain its connection to the OpenSim UGAIM, in an analogous fashion that a user has been demonstrated to teleport from the Betagrid to OSGrid using OGP last year?"

Charles




________________________________
From: Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>
To: Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:50:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ogpx] one virtual world, or many?

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kari Lippert<[e-mail]> wrote:
> The network/internet analogy is great. I vote base hit.... and would
> like to emphasize that, given current usage of the words, the answer
> to
>
>>     Are we connecting two virtual worlds or is the result a single
>>     virtual world?
>
> is yes, sort of.
>
> As I understand it, VWRAP is designed to connect/allow
> interoperability between two or more independent/distinct/individual
> virtual environments/regions/worlds into what appears to the user as a
> single environment/region/world/universe. This single
> environment/region/world/universe is in fact multiple
> independent/distinct/individual virtual environments/regions/worlds
> whose boundaries could be administrative or technological but the
> distinction matters not.
>
> Is that right?
>
> Kari
>

this is an interesting use case, but not what OGPX/VWRAP was proposed
to address.

MMOX remains as a venue for the discussion of integrating technically
diverse virtual worlds.


>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Dave CROCKER<[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>>
>> Pre-game.
>>
>> Confusion and disagreement that includes the term "virtual world" is proving
>> tenacious, in spite of extensive and substantive discussion.  Typically,
>> something this persistent means either that some concept(s) lack shared
>> definition or that competing technical paradigms are present.
>>
>> As was noted many message ago, there's a good chance that much of the
>> disagreement is really about the meaning of the term.  That is, that
>> apparent
>> disagreements about such things as scope of work is really about scope of
>> this one term.  That, at least, is my own reading of the discussions.  I
>> think people are using the term differently.  If we can get to the point of
>> using it the same
>> way, my sense is that we will find that disagreements about actual work to
>> be done, and its use, are rather small.
>>
>> In other words, I think the persistence of debate that keeps using that term
>> "virtual world" means we have to resolve it before we can make serious
>> progress. These sorts of things never seem to go away without explicit
>> resolution.  While much of the earlier attempts to resolve this look like
>> they helped quite a bit, it seems clear that a bit more effort is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> The wind-up.
>>
>> Since the crux of the challenge keeps coming back to what interoperability
>> will
>> or will not be provided -- with at least one additional point about whether
>> the
>> current work must be used internal to a service or only used /between/
>> services
>> -- permit me a moment of theft from Internet history and constructs.  I
>> think it
>> can be applicable here:
>>
>>   Network vs. Internetwork.
>>
>>   "A" virtual world vs. Multiple virtual worlds.
>>
>> But hold on.  I'm not necessarily going to suggest mapping the two sets as
>> one-to-one directly...
>>
>> Originally, a network was a discrete technical set.  X.25.  NCP.  XNS.
>> Netware.
>> Whatever.  Both technology and administration had the same boundary.  Your
>> network might use one technology and mine might use another.  But even if
>> they
>> used the same technology, one was mine and the other was yours.  So I tend
>> to
>> view interaction across administrative boundaries as far more interesting to
>> internetworking than whether different technologies are used:
>>
>>   <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1775.html>
>>
>> The term Internet has come to mean a single, unified, global service.  It
>> crosses administrative boundaries.  Does IBM internally operate a 'network'
>> or
>> an 'internetwork'?  Either choice is reasonable, depending on what is the
>> focus. I think we don't need to resolve the equivalent question here.
>>
>> There is universal agreement that there is a single global service,
>> comprising many independent smaller services, and that that single, larger
>> thing is "The" Internet.
>>
>> What we tend to forget is that there probably are other Internets that don't
>> (directly) interoperate with the global one.  They are off "The Internet"
>> grid
>> and are on their own.  They are likely also "an" Internet.  These days, they
>> might be running TCP/IP, but they don't have to.  For example:
>>
>>   <http://www.dtnrg.org/wiki>
>>
>> Some uses of "virtual world" appear to mean an administrative boundary and
>> others appear to mean a technical boundary. This is the sort of thing we
>> need to resolve.
>>
>>
>>
>> The pitch.
>>
>> I suggest ignoring technical differences within an administrative domain and
>> even across different administrative domains.  Simply, VWrap is used to
>> connect together administrative domains running simulations.
>>
>>     I'm running one simulation and you are running another.  We use
>>     VWrap to interoperate.
>>
>>     Are we connecting two virtual worlds or is the result a single
>>     virtual world?
>>
>> Some other folk might not interoperate with our unified service.  They are
>> running their own thing.  Are they running a different virtual world or,
>> perhaps, a different set of multiple virtual worlds?
>>
>>
>>
>> The swing.
>>
>> I suggest that:
>>
>>     Any set of independent administrative domains that interoperate
>>     together, using VWrap, creates a /single/ virtual world.
>>
>>     Each independent administrative domain is running /part/ of that single
>>     virtual world.  (The part might be one Region, or Agent, or it might be
>>     many of both or any combination.)
>>
>>     Hence, I am suggesting that an integrated VWrap environment has a
>>     comparable quality to an integrated internet environment that we call
>>     "The" Internet.  One service.
>>
>> If you are running a simulation that is not part of an integrated,
>> interoperable
>> VWrap environment, you are in a different virtual world.
>>
>>     If you are part of an interoperable VWrap service, you are in a
>>     single virtual world.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what you run internally.  What matters is integration to
>> the
>> interoperable service using VWrap.
>>
>>
>>
>> Base hit or strikeout?
>>
>> d/
>> --
>>
>>  Dave Crocker
>>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>  bbiw.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ogpx mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
_______________________________________________
ogpx mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx