Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter: 2009 08 28 revision

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Kari, that was an excellent review of a long series of subthreads.

You have identified something that the rest of us seem to have missed:  that
OGP / VWRAP conflates the protocol(s) used to implement a single virtual
world with the protocol(s) used to implement interop between multiple
virtual worlds.  No wonder we have a severe problem.

That was a very insightful observation, kudos.

The protocol used to implement a given virtual world is *an implementation
detail* of that world.

Is VWRAP intended to be an implementation protocol for a VW, or an *interop
protocol* between them?

Morgaine.






=====================================

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> My two cents....
>
> The first paragraph (where the purpose is being laid out) says:
>
> Conforming  client  applications use  the protocol  to manipulate and
> move the  user's avatar, create  objects in  a virtual world, interact
>  with other users  and their surroundings  and consume and create
> media and information from sources inside and outside their virtual
> world.
>
> I normally lurk in this group but I have to say this surprised me.
> This statement says that I will use this protocol within my virtual
> world, not that I will use this protocol to interface with different
> virtual worlds. This doesn't speak to what I thought the thrust was -
> interoperability of worlds for transportability of avatars. While once
> could argue that the use of the same protocol intra-world would help
> in the inter-world communication, this is not the case and should not
> be assumed to be so. I'm actually saddened that you're all thinking of
> interoperability as achievable only if everyone uses the same
> intra-world protocol.
>
> "Enforcing" the use of a standard intra-world for every world will be
> impossible and quite possibly viewed as some by an intrusion into
> their IP, not to mention that it would kill innovation. Transfer
> between worlds will be lossy: existing worlds are not the same, nor do
> they have the same types of virtual property associated with them.
> This standard is going to either have to address the bare minimum, or
> become obsolete prior to completion with the introduction of a novel
> virtual world into the virtual universe.
>
> I concur with many of the discussions that have been put forth
> regarding this draft and have the following suggestions:
>
> Infinity Linden - good rewording to include OGP history; too confusing
> to leave in the main body (a reader will think it a typo)
>
> Morgaine - agree to remove sentence that begins "To support the
> exegesis  of the specifications..."
>
> meadhbh - deployment patterns are very different from models of
> protocols; deployment patterns may be useful but should not replace a
> good model
>
> Morgaine - agree with the addition of the Foundation Component but
> argue that it should also be the focus in the first paragraph of the
> description
>
> meadhbh/Morgaine/Carlo - redefinition of virtual world is a bad idea
> but what you are really talking about is the virtual universe as
> composed by a variety of virtual worlds - and I like the plain English
> of Region 1 in VW 1 to Region 2 in VW 2 expression put forth as it is
> very clear, easily understood, not easily misunderstood,  and I
> believe captures the intent of the standard to be developed
>
> Once we figure out the focus (which I take to be inter-world, or
> cross-world, transfer) then we can begin capturing the requirements
> for a "successful transfer". From that the model, the deployment
> pattern(s), the conformance guidelines, and other associated parts of
> the standard will come. So I ask, what is the focus (purpose) of the
> working group? Why are you making all this effort? Is it to bring the
> multitudes of virtual worlds to one protocol or to make transfer
> between them possible? I posit those are two different standards and
> only the latter is worth standardization.
>
> <step off soapbox>
> My two cents anyway....
>
> Kari
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>