Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my (our?) communication
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Wed, 02 September 2009 13:03 UTC
Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1D63A6BD1 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 06:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.345
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lJE3OV6cXTP8 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 06:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viefep22-int.chello.at (viefep22-int.chello.at [62.179.121.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CCD28C747 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 06:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge04.upc.biz ([192.168.13.239]) by viefep19-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20090902125652.RJHS21098.viefep19-int.chello.at@edge04.upc.biz>; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:56:52 +0200
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge04.upc.biz with edge id bowp1c00P0FlQed04owqum; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:56:52 +0200
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1MipPe-0003l6-MU; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:58:10 +0200
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:58:10 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: Infinity Linden <infinity@lindenlab.com>
Message-ID: <20090902125810.GA11930@alinoe.com>
References: <20090831170006.GB15637@alinoe.com> <b8ef0a220908311108v5d8a2b72v45c759c6bf421971@mail.gmail.com> <20090831222934.GB29965@alinoe.com> <3a880e2c0908311606j16d2f75al478fe85345543e55@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <3a880e2c0908311606j16d2f75al478fe85345543e55@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: Meadhbh Siobhan <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>, ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my (our?) communication
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:03:04 -0000
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:06:48PM -0700, Infinity Linden wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Carlo Wood<carlo@alinoe.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:08:13AM -0700, Meadhbh Siobhan wrote: > >> but before i comment on these terms, let me point out that while this > >> discussion is interesting and germane to the subject of virtual > >> worlds, it is a bit out of scope for a discussion about the charter. > >> so, can we just for right now, just use the terms that have been > >> defined in the way that they're defined and get through the charter > >> bashing? > >> > >> i PROMISE you, that we'll get back to terms in more detail, and > >> honestly, i like your use of the term "universe." > > > > that feels to me ... like pushing it through. > > and saying that we don't want to start _any_ work before we all agree > on every term seems obstructionist to me. > > > > >> in the current OGP/VWRAP documents, the term "island" and "galaxy" aren't used. > > > > great then it won't give rise to confusion > > > >> your use of the term "region" is different than the way it's described > >> in the intro doc. what you call a "region" below, we would call a > >> "region domain." > > > > a "region domain" is the smallest possible partition??? > > I thought a region is a single 'sim' (in SL those 256x256 m^2 areas) > > yes, a region is the smallest possible partition that is defined in > OGP/VWRAP. So far so good... The rest seems irrelevant as it just says "SL isn't VWRAP", I know that. We're trying to define terms to use in our communication within the group, or even just on this list. I've said that many times now. [irrelevant... > but OGP/VWRAP regions are not limited to SL's 256x256 > geometry. also, we're not trying to force the use of "parcels" and > "estates" as part of OGP/VWRAP. they are, of course, an integral part > of our billing process, so Linden will still support them, and if > people think we need to publicly define the interface and definition ^^__ this group? > of these terms, we probably would. > > but we don't think it's a requirement for non-second life regions to ^^__ Linden Lab? > support our billing infrastructure, so it's probably going to be > defined as a distinct set of resources/interfaces available on linden > region domain(s). > > later on if everyone thinks such a thing SHOULD go in the protocol, > maybe, but i don't think people will. ...] Okay, so from your only (first) line, I'd guess that -yes- the term "region" means "the smallest partition" (that can be run one per host). > >> what we call a "region" is the set of data used to > >> represent a collection of adjacent points in the virtual world. i'm > > > > you lost me there, comparing it with SL (PLEASE! just for clarity!), > > do you mean something smaller than 256x256 meter or something larger > > with endless sea as boundary? > > for the purposes of OGP/VWRAP, a region is some data with a couple of > well defined interfaces queried by clients (either client applications > running on users' systems, other VWRAP servers or other information > services (read web applications.) one aspect of a region is it's > shape. the region may choose to define their shape as 256x256m if they > want, and most currently deployed SL regions will likely retain that > shape for the indefinite future. but there's no reason someone else > could define a region to be 128x128m or 512x512m or decide to use an > arbitrary 3d shape to define the bounds of the region. Ok. This is what I thought, and my proposal for "REGION" was correct then. > and though VWRAP will define the concept of a region and SL will > define regions to be 256x256m in the near term, this doesn't mean you > can't define "sub-regions" or "super-regions" or "sectors" or "map > grids" or "stellar cartography instances" in your region domain. I'd call that "inter-world" protocol, which is not relevant for this group: A notition of "super-regions" etc will not be part of VWRAP. > >> hoping that the verbiage in the draft charter makes it clear that > >> services that export information about the region or provide an > >> interface to modify the region's state go through a single region > >> specific URI. the "simulator" is the server process that maintains the > >> region's state and processes service requests. the "simulator host" or > >> "region host" is the machine itself that the simulator process runs > >> on. > > > > I thought you just said that was a region domain > > no. a "region" is the object graph. the "simulator" is the process > that implements the protocol. the "region domain" is the collection of > regions "owned" by one organization. the "region host" or "simulator > host" is the machine on which the simulator runs. Great! Progress! :) You never said that before (while I am on this list). So, in the words that I used before, "REGION DOMAIN": set of REGION's run by one administration. > >> further, a "domain" is a collection of resources administered by a > >> single entity. thus a "region domain" is a collection of regions that > >> are run by the same entity, and presumably _could_ be governed by the > >> same terms of service, or more importantly to us, could potentially be > >> considered a single end entity in the trust model. > > > > you said "what we call a "region" is the set of data used to > > represent a collection of adjacent points in the virtual world" > > and "a "region domain" is a collection of regions..." > > Thus a region domain is adjacent? Or not? > > a region domain is a collection of collections. the protocol does not > flatten collections. > >> we haven't put the term "adjacent region" into the doc, and now that i > >> see you talking about it, i think it was an oversight not to. or > >> rather, maybe just to talk about "adjacency" in general. for people > >> who are unfamiliar with SL, adjacent regions are simply regions that > >> are next to each other in the geometry of the virtual world. in second > >> life, a region communicates with adjacent regions so the original > > > > see? a region IS a sim! Then that is the smallest partition, no?? > > (partition as in 'able to run on separate hardware'; definitely not > > talking about parcels) > > huh? a region is a region and a sim is a sim. Would you mind explaining the difference? > >> region can tell the client the state of assets it's managing, if the > >> client needs to know about it and policy says the client can access > >> that information. *whew* in SL, the term "island" sometimes means > >> regions that have no adjacent regions (i.e. - they're out in the > >> virtual ocean, all by themselves) or about a virtual landscape that > >> looks like an island. (obviously, the former is more interesting to > >> this group than the latter at this moment.) > > > > so we have consensus there ((a set of) regions that have no adjacent regions) > > I just add that it's run by a single administration > > yeah. it's thought that a region will have one root administrator, and > may have 0 or more adjacent regions. > > that being said.. we have to be careful when we define who gets to > administer regions in region domains or any subordinate organizations > the region or region domain introduces. i don't want to define things > in a way that OSGrid has problems. and we're going to retain the > feature of our system that estate owners can do things that normal > users can't. but we don't want to force everyone to adopt this model, > so we're not pushing for it to be in the spec, 'cause we really think > there are people out there who don't want to be burdened with > artifacts of our billing model. When I say "administration" I mean the people owning the machines that a server runs on, NOT "estate managers" and not even those who pay (rent) the sims. To compare with Second Life: the only administration that exists here is "Linden Lab". So, again, my proposal is to use "ISLAND" for a set of adjacent REGION's with no other adjacent regions that is run by a single administration. And to talk about "CONTINENT" when more than one administration is involved. I'm not saying we have to publically define this; I'm trying to make sure I will be understood when I use those terms in my future posts. > >> the terms "land" and "continent" are not defined in the spec. SL uses > >> "continents" for administrative and (some) billing purposes. we are > >> not trying to foist this aspect of SL off on the unsuspecting public. > >> that is, it works well for us to divide things into continents, and if > >> someone other than Linden wants to do this, good on ya. but, requiring > >> that this be a part of the specification is not harmonious with our > >> objective of not having people say bad things about us. > > > > no reason not to use the terms from now on on this list. > > yes. there are reasons not to use them. they have no normative > definition and asking people to accept artifacts of our billing model > is asking for trouble. There is no need for a normative definition to exist, and using a term on this list has nothing to do whatsoever with asking people to accept artifacts of your billing model. > >> "galaxy" is also not defined in the spec, or by any of implementors > >> who worked on OGP over the last 2 years. > > > > no reason not to use it on this list. > > why not call it a cartographic set? If you are happy with that, sure. As I've said many times already: ANY term will do - just as long as you will understand what I mean when I use it. > >> "virtual world" is defined informally as discussed earlier on this > >> list. i know morgaine frequently uses the term "region domain" to > >> describe what we would call a "virtual world." > > > > Yes, Morgaine/Kari/me say: "virtual world" < "region domain", or so > > we thought. You say: "region domain" < "virtual world", and still > > there is no need to define these terms more clearly, right? > > yes, but we don't have the need to define the term "virtual world." we only use it thirteen times in the charter. > >> "VWRAP Universe" is not defined now, and i'm generally loathe to > >> introduce new terms, but i have to admit, i kinda like this one. but > >> let's talk about it more later. > > > > not important > > LOL. i say i like something and you assert it's irrelevant. > > > > >> about "MMOX Universe.." as far as i can tell, no one is working on > >> MMOX currently, so we might want to say "non-VWRAP universe" to > >> describe universes that are not VWRAPish. > > > > even less important > > huh? you are trying to tell me we should define things that are not > VWRAP as "non-VWRAP" instead of "MMOX" and i tell you there seems to > be no one working on MMOX and you think this is unimportant? really? There seems to be a very consistent misunderstanding between us. > > Now please do the reverse: start with my descriptions and then > > give terms that we can use ON THIS LIST - not in the protocol, or > > drafts or whatever document - just here - so that we UNDERSTAND > > eachother! > > > > Let me fill in what I THINK you have as term... > > > >> > A) A smallest partition > > > > I still think you call this 'region': in principle it is > > possible to run every region on a different host/machine, > > there is nothing smaller that could be run on a separate > > machine. > > i could care less how many machines it's run on. a region has a single > URI used to request its services. good enough for me. you DID misread my remark though. Completely independent of whether it interests you, my definition holds, and therefore was a correct attempt to get mutual agreement on what region means. > >> > B) A collection of adjacent regions run by a single administration > > > > you have no term... but we need one. > > Make one up, or lets use 'island' > > fine. you can call it an island. it is unimportant for the definition > of the protocol. what is important is that regions have 0 or more > adjacent regions and that regions are members of a region domain. Well, I rather type "island" than "a collection of adjacent regions from one region domain that have no other regions adjacent to it" every time :) > >> > C) A collection of adjacent regions's run by different administrations > >> > (which very likely use the same TOS etc) > > > > idem / 'continent' > > again. feel free to use whatever terminology you want to use. Great! 'continent' then now will mean (if I use it): "a collection of adjacent regions from one or more region domain that have no other regions adjacent to it" Note that with this definition an island IS a continent. Both are, indeed, not very important though. I only introduced them to 'build up' to a (this way) clear description of the next two terms, what this is all about. > >> > D) A collection of continent's that are not adjacent but still fall > >> > under the same TOS, likely use the same inter-world protocols > >> > and organisation-specific extensions etc (likely, they will > >> > have their own website and their own Abuse Report team etc). > > > > *** THIS IS THE REASON THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CHARTER *** > > because: you don't HAVE a term for this! > > well. sorry you don't want to play with us. Excuse me? Are you the chairwoman of this group by the way? Is there a way to vote about who should lead this group? Goes we're getting into a dead end again and again and in the end you're just going to sent that charter to the IETF, right? Cause "Carlo is not a part of the group, therefore we have consensus". I didn't want to play with you, after all. > > That collapses D and E into one, and that is unacceptable. > > > >> > E) A collection of Virtual World's that have totally different > >> > administrations and possibly different TOS etc, but which > >> > interoperate (ie, you can pass on a Landmark of one VW to > >> > a person you meet in another VW). > > > > You consistently call this 'virtual world' > > we do not use the term "virtual world" in a normative fashion. You surely have your ways to make someone furious of frustration :( I think it's better if this group FAILS to create a working group at this point. It is simply not working. -- Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
- [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my (our… Carlo Wood
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Kari Lippert
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Meadhbh Siobhan
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Meadhbh Siobhan
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Carlo Wood
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Carlo Wood
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Infinity Linden
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Infinity Linden
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Infinity Linden
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Carlo Wood
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Meadhbh Siobhan
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Carlo Wood
- Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my … Dave CROCKER