Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my (our?) communication

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

krunk. had i waited a few minutes to send this reply i would have seen
that i think we're hurtling 'towards agreement.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Infinity Linden<[e-mail]> wrote:
> we need to have a normative definition of "land?" i would assert that
> the term "region domain" is sufficient, for the purposes of an
> interoperability protocol, to define a container for a collection of
> one or more regions. i further assert that this concept is distinct
> from the concept that regions from different region domains may or may
> not be adjacent, and that the manner in which regions geographic
> relation to one another is described is independent of the number of
> regions in a region domain.
>
> and yes, i did mention the concept of adjacency, and recommended we do
> not make adjacent regions a special case, but rather define regions in
> such a way that the positional aspect of regions makes it clear that
> regions should understand that they need to respond to protocol from
> other regions that are defined to be adjacent, when they exist.
>
> and the proper english usage for a person of my gender is "and since
> Infinity didn't give replacement terms in her reply (she only said
> 'this term is not defined by us in past 2 years')."
>
> so... to recap... we've survived for two years without a normative
> definition of "land," and i assert some stuff about why. i think we
> should define "ADJACENCY" as being an aspect of a "REGION" instead of
> defining something called an "ADJACENT REGION" that is distinct from a
> "REGION." My drivers license has an 'F' on it, and not an 'M'. (though
> honestly, i understand it's difficult sometimes to recognize the
> uniquely feminine way in which i type.)
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:34:50PM -0400, Kari Lippert wrote:
>>> Personally I would drop the use of "LAND" and  "ADJACENT REGIONS" but
>>> I think these terms, as defined here are the right set based on the
>>> lengthy conversations I started yesterday morning. Using these terms
>>> it should now be rather trivial to restate the Charter in a way that
>>> captures the essence of the effort's intent.
>>>
>>> Kari
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> and since Infinity didn't give replacement terms in his reply
>> (he only said 'this term is not defined by us in past 2 years')
>> I see no other alternative than to use these terms.
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> > A) A smallest partition
>>> >
>>> >  REGION
>>> >
>>> > B) A collection of adjacent regions run by a single administration
>>> >
>>> >  ISLAND or ADJACENT REGIONS
>>> >
>>> > C) A collection of adjacent regions's run by different administrations
>>> >   (which very likely use the same TOS etc)
>>> >
>>> >  LAND, or CONTINENT when larger.
>>> >
>>> > 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).
>>> >
>>> >  VIRTUAL WORLD
>>> >
>>> > 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).
>>> >
>>> >  GALAXY
>>> >
>>> > F) The whole of all Galaxies that do not interoperate, but still use VWRAP.
>>> >
>>> >  VWRAP UNIVERSE
>>> >
>>> > G) The rest that use the term "virtual world", but do not use VWRAP.
>>> >
>>> >  MMOX UNIVERSE
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Please state if
>>> > * you have problem with me going to use these terms consistently in my posts
>>> > * you will use these terms with the same meaning
>>> > * you wish to give these terms a different meaning
>>> >
>>> > I understand there is also something called "REGION DOMAIN", but
>>> > I have no idea which of the above that would be as it's not my
>>> > term and it was never discussed.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ogpx mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>>> >
>>
>> --
>> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ogpx mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>>
>