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

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

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
>