Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

also. just a show of hands. who's planning on implementing the tourist
> model?



Almost everybody who will operate virtual worlds, I assume --- that could be
hundreds of thousands of world operators, if not millions, mostly small.  We
certainly can't foretell!  And we can't get them to raise a show of hands
either. :-)

I doubt that it will be common to operate walled gardens once everyone else
is allowing their users to travel freely among the huge diversity of the
metaverse.  It certainly seems like a recipe for failure to deny tourism to
one's residents as a matter of policy, given that tourism is so popular in
the physical world today.

However, this is a policy issue of course, and therefore not something that
VWRAP will dictate.  We merely provide the mechanisms to allow tourism when
desired, not mandate or deny it to any given world operator.


Morgaine.




==================================

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> also. just a show of hands. who's planning on implementing the tourist
> model?
>
> --
>   infinity linden (aka meadhbh hamrick)  *  it's pronounced "maeve"
>         http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Infinity_Linden
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 00:34, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > The "tourist use case" has been brought up several times, but the concept
> is
> > not always used in the same way, and needs to be more precisely defined.
> > Morgaines original definition of the "Free Worlds Tourist use case" in
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01392.html
> > mentions two characteristics:
> > 1. Travel requires no prior arrangement.
> > 2. Your avatar is defined by you, not by the target worlds, and it
> appears
> > in those worlds with no prior arrangement.
> > Point 1 is only dependent the policies of the users AD as well as that of
> > the destination region. It is not dependent on the protocol, so in
> principle
> > solved.
> > The second point is actually extending the SL use case beyond what is in
> my
> > view needed for a basic tourist model (and that is why the post was in
> the
> > mmox list).  In my view  a basic tourist use case has two main
> > characteristics:
> > 1.  Travel requires no prior arrangement.
> >         2.  Agent domains can use external asset services
> > Point 2 requires that assets services expose an interface (in the current
> > ogp description of the AD that is not the case).
> > Note that this models does *not* assumes that all assets in a services
> > should be useable by the agent in all domains, but only that an interface
> is
> > available so an asset service in one domain can be contacted by another
> AD.
> > I think exposing the asset service interface directly is essential for
> > meaningful interop.  I think it would benefit the discussion if some
> > diagrams were added to http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Structural_Design
> > and/or to the VWRAP wiki to document this possibility.
> > -Vaughn
> > _______________________________________________
> > ogpx mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>