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

[Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>]

>
> if we start by saying the virtual world is defined as being "all the
> places an avatar can go," does this mean that information that comes
> into the virtual world by way of web protocols, from web sites
> intended to be used by traditional web browsers is or is not part of
> the virtual world? or what about two "worlds" that only share a single
> region? are they simultaneously part of the same "overworld" and part
> of distinct "subordinate worlds"?

Consider the "explosion" of "virtual" 3D "world" spaces such as those
associated with http://www.gogofrog.com/. I don't think this is quite
what is desired at this point, nor do I think we have to tackle the
elephant "all the places an avatar can go".

>
> but still... part of the reason we came to this forum was to get
> feedback, and it's starting to sound like we want to have at least a
> working definition of the term, if for no other reason than to evoke
> an intuitive understanding of the problem domain.
>

More than that, to include a term that will be defined later in the
charter is inviting discord and misunderstanding.



> is it possible to move the definition of "virtual world" to the intro
> document?

It must be - and a new, less overloaded word (or acronym) could be
used instead. I saw some great acronyms earlier (those folk may have a
future with the government!) so wondered if the easiest way out is to
establish a term that is what we mean.


> (why do we need to get hung up on the definition of the term when the
> specifications do not use the term in a normative fashion? it's like
> saying we can't work on HTTP because we can't decide whether resources
> accessed by GOPHER are part of "the web.")

IMHO, I think a decision was made when work on HTTP was begun and that
was to exclude gopher sites. I don't know if that was done to allow
the work to proceed technically or to deal with an issue that could
well have been exactly like this.

I believe our problem only comes when someone not privy to all the
back conversation comes to the charter and misinterprets. I sense a
decent consensus within this group but a lack of proper vocabulary to
express the concepts.

Kari