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

[Joshua Bell <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think that any effort to work on the final wording
> should be stopped until we finally agree on what "virtual world" means...
>

Please note that we are attempting to craft a CHARTER at this point that
describes the problem space that a working group will tackle. Do you feel
that we can't proceed with the creation of a working group until specific
terminology is nailed down?

I understand that you don't want to define what virtual world means,
> in which case you shouldn't use it at all in the charter and also
> not in the protocol name (VWrap).
>

I believe "virtual world" is as well defined as "web site". It should not be
used in a normative fashion, but is extremely clear to lay-persons what is
under discussion, and is clear enough to distinguish the problem domain from
others (i.e. it's not tackling email, IPv6, etc).

I assert that this is sufficient for the charter. (And, personally, beyond.)


> A) A smallest partition
> B) A collection of adjacent A's run by a single administration
> C) A collection of adjecent B's run by different administrations (which
> very likely use the same TOS etc)
> D) A collection of C's that are not adjacent but still fall under the same
> TOS etc.
> E) A collection of D's that have totally different administrations and
> possibly different TOS etc, but which interoperate.
> F) The whole of all E's that do not interoperate, but still use VWRAP.
> G) The rest that use the term "virtual world", but do not use VWRAP.
>

If we were to agree that consensus terminology for the above concepts was
something we needed to come up with, wouldn't a Working Group be a great
place to try and achieve that consensus?

Please don't reply with "we don't want to define this" :p
> We NEED to define this, or we can't TALK about this!
>

HTTP can be defined irrespective of a formal definition for "web site".

Both technical and marketing terms are extremely valuable, but shouldn't be
confused.