Re: [ogpx] one virtual world, or many?

Meadhbh Siobhan <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com> Sun, 30 August 2009 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560433A68BC for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TLGrOSSUnabQ for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f200.google.com (mail-iw0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2FE3A6886 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn38 with SMTP id 38so1565785iwn.29 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9yUrhGZ5153wnfZ4OFbLsjSmk/aNEScEH/T55ODeJZs=; b=pN/odkSeIpDDdbKq1Rv1xDs8gVFCi7dPsWJlI42Qg6aWgv8kBw5dk5LENruc+Xj+E8 EWADkbeb2p1h0VVlRCWuGX3Zy+Wc6s5AsYS46a9veq8uSoJ+nnPTPPZ9fHMiSwFTGh+7 lJ5iRcmtOO1FRmdjjDXEbu02//MQx//Xwv+nQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=cQuesT/juzXmqvyMLsNG404I3XYGIT9SOC1tW7CRcu7fgTIjrm0cDWuRv2NB+T8nb0 5A58BA8VSIueQ9YbdZNr9DOB0HYKmdjwOYOtRkMvvGIK5WveBvcV3bnFwEn1tJCVlrlX kPfV5JrjmPeLq4UXtr7EQ0aKCx6Qu1NDn79y0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.124.164 with SMTP id u36mr5535792ibr.21.1251661732136; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <382d73da0908301158y5276835bt9e68ee91c6dae003@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3a880e2c0908281127h6965f332na493007b032e5e93@mail.gmail.com> <20090830003055.GD22756@alinoe.com> <b8ef0a220908291754x31f24ea7x702100d6aa9810ef@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0908300225l34ec9f35x465d46f34313b60c@mail.gmail.com> <382d73da0908300505t3f804865h629bec91ad59954a@mail.gmail.com> <4A9A9D5A.9020400@dcrocker.net> <382d73da0908301120n7e93d13j5b96151844df9a84@mail.gmail.com> <b8ef0a220908301150j61dd65d2pdbfe55416771595c@mail.gmail.com> <382d73da0908301158y5276835bt9e68ee91c6dae003@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:48:52 -0700
Message-ID: <b8ef0a220908301248w18c136c1h6498195e9081b985@mail.gmail.com>
From: Meadhbh Siobhan <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>
To: Kari Lippert <kari.lippert@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] one virtual world, or many?
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:48:46 -0000

OGPX/VWRAP is an effort to define interoperability between systems
that implement a virtual world that share a list of common features.
these features can be found in the "intro and requirements" document.

MMOX was a previous effort to address address interoperability between
"virtual worlds." A mailing list exists for MMOX, but currently seems
unreachable. It was considered a failure by some because after two
months of discussion and a face to face meeting, we were unable to
agree even on the definition of the term "interoperability." At the
MMOX BoF, we could not reach consensus, but rather than abandoning the
effort, a recommendation was made to constrain the scope of the effort
to "second life-like" worlds. This was the focus of the OGP
interoperability work over the last two years and serves as the basis
for the OGPX/VWRAP effort.

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Kari Lippert<kari.lippert@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Meadhbh
> Siobhan<meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kari Lippert<kari.lippert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The network/internet analogy is great. I vote base hit.... and would
>>> like to emphasize that, given current usage of the words, the answer
>>> to
>>>
>>>>     Are we connecting two virtual worlds or is the result a single
>>>>     virtual world?
>>>
>>> is yes, sort of.
>>>
>>> As I understand it, VWRAP is designed to connect/allow
>>> interoperability between two or more independent/distinct/individual
>>> virtual environments/regions/worlds into what appears to the user as a
>>> single environment/region/world/universe. This single
>>> environment/region/world/universe is in fact multiple
>>> independent/distinct/individual virtual environments/regions/worlds
>>> whose boundaries could be administrative or technological but the
>>> distinction matters not.
>>>
>>> Is that right?
>>>
>>> Kari
>>>
>>
>> this is an interesting use case, but not what OGPX/VWRAP was proposed
>> to address.
>>
>> MMOX remains as a venue for the discussion of integrating technically
>> diverse virtual worlds.
>>
>>
>
> So OGPX/VWRAP is being proposed to address the problem of the
> integration of non-technically diverse virtual worlds all implementing
> the same protocol?
>
> Perhaps I should interact with the MMOX group. Since I thought I was,
> can you point me in their direction? Thanks!
>
> Kari
>