Re: [ogpx] where does VWRAP fit?

[Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>]

>
> VWRAP as a protocol suite should provide the framework for moving agents
> between regions. Regions are represented as sets of services, which can be
> provided by multiple service providers, and within multiple trust domains.
>
Awesome - this clarifies what a region is. It also states that one
region can exist within multiple trust domains.

> Given that, if you personally define "virtual world" as a set of regions
> that are provided by a single service provider, then VWRAP should indeed
> provide the framework for agents to traverse those multiple virtual worlds,
> policy permitting.
>
Are you referring to "you personally" as the user perspective? If so,
then this is consistent with what I understand.


> If you personally define "virtual world" as the set of all regions that an
> agent can visit (provided by one or more providers), then no, VWRAP would
> not allow traversing multiple worlds because, by that definition, that agent
> can only experience one such world.
>
If you are abstracting this definition from the start of my question
regarding "virtual place" then you didn't quite understand. I take the
blame for not properly describing it. What I was trying to say is that
a "virtual place" is somewhere (not everywhere) the "virtual
representation" (as opposed to the meat-body) can go. This statement
was only made to clarify the term "virtual place" as I had intended to
use it in place of the highly contested "virtual world".

The "user community" currently associates the term "virtual world"
with an application/service provider pairing. They can move around
inside most of the "virtual place"s within that application/service
provider pairing seamlessly. (Take as an example the difference
between moving around different user-content-spaces in Second Life vs.
user-content-spaces in Gogofrog. Both 3D, both user-content-spaces,
one seamless and the other not.) I believe the desire of the "user
community" is to move their "virtual representation" between one
application/service provider set of "virtual place"s (which they call
a "virual world") to another (e.g., OpenSim to Second Life) in a
seamless fashion. I do not believe that the "user community" desires
all of those "virtual place"s to be a single application/service
provider pairing. I also believe the "user community" would abandon
the whole thing if it all looked like it came from a cookie cutter!

The future is what this protocol is to support, yes? I believe that
future includes the ability to "walk through a door" (teleport, click
a street sign or ad, etc.) to another "virtual place" -- from your
island on Second Life to her room in Gogofrog to his place in Habbo.
Yes, yes, I know, we're not talking about those sorts of places but I
think they will factor in in the future. If Second Life, OSGrid,
Reaction Grid and Science Sim are the countries, then these places
will become the islands. We want to make sure we don't preclude travel
to islands as we establish travel between countries, but rather define
for the island (and the countries) what has to be in place to allow
such travel.

I thank you for the country travel analogy - as Charles says, it fits
quite well when you consider all of the things involved in a border
crossing.

Kari