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

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

the charter already says "Such virtual worlds may consist of regions
administered by distinct organizations."

i think we used the term "virtual world(s)" to help contextualize the
effort. if the term is confusing, we could use "region" and "region
domain" and "region host / simulator" in the body of the charter.

though i would argue that the term "virtual world" should appear
somewhere early in the description of the working group so people
reading the charter will have some context. (Dave C. and others have
argued persuasively out that peeps from outside the VW/OGP community
won't automatically know that "OGP" means "virtual worlds protocol."
consequently, i think "region domain" won't automatically translate to
"part of a virtual world" unless explicitly mentioned.)

-cheers
-meadhbh


On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Joshua Bell<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Ugh, I just realized that my last several posts were private replies, not
> reply-all messages. D'oh. Resending, but some context may be lost.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Meadhbh Siobhan
>> <[e-mail]> wrote, in answer to Carlo Wood:
>>
>>> and to your point about landmarks and teleport.
>>>
>>> teleporting between points in the virtual world, even if the origin
>>> and destination are managed by different administrative domains has
>>> always been part of the protocol proposal. we're not taking that out.
>>
>>
>> That was not Carlo's point.  Carlo asked about landmarks and teleports
>> between  virtual worlds, so stating that you're not taking them out from
>> within a single world is not answering his question.
>>
>> The question being asked is a very simple one.  I do not understand why a
>> clear answer is not being given.
>
> I think we all agree (ahem, have rough consensus) on this statement:
>
> * OGP should support teleports between regions that are part of different
> administrative domains, when policy permits.
>
> I think the hard part is that "world" is not a well defined concept in OGP.
> We can't say "OGP should support teleports between different worlds" when we
> can't define "world". I maintain that "world" is not a technical term, just
> as the HTTP RFCs do not define "web". (The term is used in the preamble, but
> not defined.) Personally, I think the term "world" will come to mean
> something I'll hand-wavily call policy-clusters-of-agent/region-domains,
> meaning groups of places avatars can easily (not necessarily freely)
> traverse; some "worlds" will span multiple administrative domains, some
> won't. But I don't want to try and define that now!
>
>> This is a matter of huge importance to the large number of SL-compatible
>> open grids that already exist, with more appearing regularly.  It needs to
>> be clearly stated whether mechanisms for interop between SL-compatible
>> worlds will be within the scope of the OGPX group, or not.
>
> Would it help if we added a parenthetical "(which may be described as one or
> more virtual worlds)" or something somewhere in the charter? IMHO, it does
> not add technical detail to the charter, but if it makes it more appealing
> or comprehensible to those not embedded in the process, it's worthwhile.
>
>>
>> Defining our scope is our primary task at this time.  This question cannot
>> be dodged.
>
> Agreed. And it may be that we're being too precise/pedantic in the charter
> text.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>