Re: [ogpx] OGPX WG draft charter, 2009-08-19 revision

[Joshua Bell <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 01:50:51AM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > As a result, an agent domain shouldn't care less where someone
> > wants to go, because they are never responsible, and therefore
> > it should NOT be a matter of policy where someone can or cannot
> > teleport while keeping their inventory: it should simply be
> > possible, because the address is given in the LandMark.
>
> What I guess is my main point, is that I think that we can
> keep using "virtual world" (or just world in short) and
> that that should refer to a (group of) region(s) under
> one administration, and not to the agent domain; where
> the world can (therefore) have a different TOS, has
> world-wide bans issued by said administration, deals with
> every Abuse Report against avatars in their region,
> and which even could run on machines in a country with
> different laws than the worlds of other administrations.
>

I'm a fan of that loose definition of "world" myself. I think I alluded to
something similar earlier, but to try and rephrase to cover our shared
thinking: the boundaries of a "world" are where a user notices (or should
notice) a difference due to policy or behavior.

Like "web site" it isn't clear that that's a technical term; it shouldn't
keep us from using the term (since we have roughly shared understanding of
the meaning) but on the other hand we shouldn't fixate on a rigorous
technical definition since it doesn't seem to be a first-class entity within
the drafts we're focusing on right now.

Huzzah, convergence!