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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Meadhbh has misrepresented the points that are being made.

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Meadhbh Siobhan
<[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

>
> a. we're not working on a protocol for interoperability between worlds
> *with radically different operating assumptions*. (i.e. - this is not a
> protocol intended to provide interoperability between *WoW, EVE Online*
> and Second Life.)
>


Nobody has ever referred to anything that might fall under the scope of MMOX
here.

This discussion has been entirely about interoperation between worlds that
implement OGP/VWRAP, and to put it even more strongly, SL-compatible worlds,
such as Opensim-based worlds and SL itself.

Continually adding an irrelevant detail like "radically different
assumptions" and naming "WoW, EVE Online" only to reject them is a plain
straw man.  It does not help advance the discussion.


Morgaine.






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

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Meadhbh Siobhan
<[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> morgaine, i don't think this is a consensus view of the protocol
> implementers.
>
> MMOX was the effort to define inter-world interoperability. that
> effort could not reach consensus in a reasonable time frame. this
> effort was organized to constrain the problem domain to define
> interoperability between systems that implement a virtual world, not
> to define a protocol for inter-world interoperability.
>
> the practical consequence of this constrained scope include:
>
> a. we're not working on a protocol for interoperability between worlds
> with radically different operating assumptions. (i.e. - this is not a
> protocol intended to provide interoperability between WoW, EVE Online
> and Second Life.)
>
> b. we're not working on a protocol that requires all systems that
> implement it to be part of the same "virtual world" (defined from the
> perspective of user.) that is, deployers of systems that implement the
> protocol may, but are not required to interoperate with other
> deployers.
>
> the OGPX effort does not preclude this work, but avoids it because it
> does not want to repeat the failures of MMOX.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Morgaine<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > 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:
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ogpx mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >
> >
>