Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Lawson English <[e-mail]>]

Morgaine wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Lawson English <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     It seems to me that the MOST touristy mode we will ever see is the
>     free-for-all from the original OGP test where simple TP and naught
>     else was supported.
>
>
>
> There was no "free-for-all" interop in the original OGP test:  there 
> was merely TP from an SL grid to several separately-administered sims, 
> with no framework in place for such sims to express their independent 
> policies, nor any design for such a framework.  This was unable to 
> support a tourism model at all since that requires DDP otherwise 
> travellers from multiple worlds having distinct policies can't meet up 
> in a common tourist resort.  It was very far indeed from a 
> free-for-all.  In fact it was much more like a plan for region 
> assimilation by an advancing empire. ;-)  All it could ever do is 
> build walled gardens.


Since the test required no agreements of any kind, but merely announcing 
the relative position of the sim on the grid to avoid technical issues 
with overlapping coordinates, I'm not sure how you can say that it was 
NOT a free-for-all. With no room for policy implementation, there's no 
policy period.
>
> Your comment also needs to be examined in another light.  "The MOST 
> touristy mode we will ever see" /*from whom*/?  Your words seem to 
> presuppose that only the deployments by the current majority provider 
> are relevant.

I would HOPE that any tourism mode that is implemented in the future by 
some provider for interop between two or more separate services will 
provide more than a default avatar with no asset sharing, no policy 
agreements, no appearance sharing, no nuttin'. Are you implying that we 
will see LESS features in a future service from someone or another? How 
low can we go? Tourism mode is, in my mind, the lowest common 
denominator of services that a minimal VWAP protocol will support.

>
> It's important not to confuse what an individual world provider such 
> as LL will do, and what the whole set of deployers of the protocol 
> will do.  If we are successful in specifying VWRAP services flexibly 
> as envisaged by David, we can expect all the possible deployment 
> patterns to be exercised to different degrees across the breadth of 
> the Internet by many different providers and many individuals.

Well, no policy agreement, no money, no assets, no individual 
appearance, etc., seems like a pretty low bar to shoot for. I hope that 
the most minimal VWRAP definition will include at least as much as the 
original OGP test provided.




Lawson (Saijanai ISL)