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

[Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>]

My bad - I thought this was, in fact, a continuation of the MMOX
effort. I stand corrected.

In defense of my earlier thoughts....
>
> we do not define the term "virtual world." there is considerable
> disagreement as to what the term means.

Yes, and this is the core of the problem.

>  in the part of the problem domain we are choosing to work on,
> we do not discuss interoperability between "virtual worlds" as this
> term is not used normatively. instead, we define the terms "region
> domain" and "simulator" and "agent domain" and a few others and define
> interoperability expectations and protocol between _them_.

Missed the part where those were defined, although I think the group
charter should not rely on having to include
definitions/redefinitions. I was thrown by the words "region",
"domain", and "agent" as they all have pretty strong meaning which
didn't quite fit for me. Not that it can't be done this way, it's just
going to be hard because you're creating definitions for a terms in a
context where they are already used.


> inter-virtual world protocol.

Awesome!


> interoperability of avatar formats is one aspect of this protocol, but
> not the only one.

So if I have a virtual place that implements the VWRAP protocol I can
do more than move avatars - again, awesome. I will refer here to the
other email regarding the "subsumption theory of virtual places".

>
> it should also be noted that we are not attempting to say that our
> model is the _ONLY_ valid models for virtual worlds. this is one of
> the reasons that OGPX is a distinct effort from MMOX. MMOX retains the
> wider focus, and as i understand it, there's no reason someone else
> can't continue it's work, or define a separate part of the problem
> domain and form another working group.
>

MMOX is dead (or just resting)? I really did think this group was one
and the same.


>
> unlike MMOX, we are not attempting, in this group, to define a generic
> protocol to be used by every virtual world. OGPX is intended to
> provide interoperability, not between worlds, but between hosts that
> work together to simulate a virtual world.
>

So it is a generic protocol to be used by every "unit" that wishes to
become part of the whole. You will still need enforcement, compliance
measures, etc.


>> meadhbh - deployment patterns are very different from models of
>> protocols; deployment patterns may be useful but should not replace a
>> good model
>
> are we talking about a processing model? we really want to define a
> processing model for conforming implementations?

I was actually talking about a protocol model, not a process model. A
process model is not necessary; definition of what entails conformance
will be.


> the focus of the group is to define an interoperability profile and
> protocol, deployment patterns and processing expectations for these
> worlds.
>

This isn't quite what the charter says, which is what I was getting
at. There are a couple of very key points missing which have been more
or less fleshed out in these various emails today.

Kari