Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter: 2009 08 28 revision

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

Carlo Wood wrote:
>    I think that using "a virtual world"
> is less confusing, and I'd rewrite the above paragraph as follows:
> 
> Adjacent locations in a virtual world accessible by  this protocol may
> be   explicitly   partitioned  into   "regions"   to  facilitate   the
> computational  and communication load  balancing required  to simulate
> the virtual  environment. Such a virtual world may consist  of regions
> administered  by distinct organizations.         Though virtual worlds
> may  be partitioned,  they  remain "un-sharded;"  all inhabitants  and
> objects  in a  particular location  in  a virtual  world may  initiate
> interaction with  all other inhabitants and objects  in that location;
> and service  endpoint addresses  refer to at  most one  location.  The
> state of  a virtual  world is independent  of the  client applications
> that access it and may persist between user sessions.

This reads well, with two exceptions:


Minor:
      Though virtual worlds may be partitioned
      ->
      Though a virtual world may  be partitioned


Substantial:

      The meaning and import of "un-sharded" is missing.  From the last time I
asked about this, I gather the term is familiar in VW circles, but it sure isn't
in the IETF or, I believe, anywhere outside /some/ database and /some/ or all VW
environs.

      Note that the language, here, is saying that it is /not/ sharded.
Jumping into a negative reference like this suggests that sharding is to be 
expected.  Is it?  Why?  Is reference to sharding essential for the charter?  Why?

      So, this reduces down to two different issues.  One is a concept and the 
other is a vocabulary term.  If the concept is essential, what's some terse text 
that makes sense for the charter?  If the term is essential, marry it to that 
terse text.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net