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

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Kari Lippert<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> if we start by saying the virtual world is defined as being "all the
>> places an avatar can go," does this mean that information that comes
>> into the virtual world by way of web protocols, from web sites
>> intended to be used by traditional web browsers is or is not part of
>> the virtual world? or what about two "worlds" that only share a single
>> region? are they simultaneously part of the same "overworld" and part
>> of distinct "subordinate worlds"?
>
> Consider the "explosion" of "virtual" 3D "world" spaces such as those
> associated with http://www.gogofrog.com/. I don't think this is quite
> what is desired at this point, nor do I think we have to tackle the
> elephant "all the places an avatar can go".
>

we are not proposing a protocol that will span technically distinct
virtual worlds. we are defining a protocol for interoperation between
systems that share common assumptions about a virtual world. (which
are defined in the intro doc, and were mentioned in the charter until
the consensus was to remove them.)

MMOX was setup to address the problem interoperability between worlds
that do not support the same set of operating assumptions.

>>
>> but still... part of the reason we came to this forum was to get
>> feedback, and it's starting to sound like we want to have at least a
>> working definition of the term, if for no other reason than to evoke
>> an intuitive understanding of the problem domain.
>>
>
> More than that, to include a term that will be defined later in the
> charter is inviting discord and misunderstanding.

cool. i think this means we're in agreement.

>
>
>
>> is it possible to move the definition of "virtual world" to the intro
>> document?
>
> It must be - and a new, less overloaded word (or acronym) could be
> used instead. I saw some great acronyms earlier (those folk may have a
> future with the government!) so wondered if the easiest way out is to
> establish a term that is what we mean.

yeah. i think there was a lot of pairwise discussion about this before
and after the BoF in Stockholm. If I remember correctly, a lot of us
felt that though the term "virtual world" had baggage, it was so
evocative, it's use was warranted. don't know if you saw the previous
discussion about reasons how we figured out that the name OGP was
sub-optimal for use in the IETF.

and. it looks like we're starting to hum on the name, and it includes
the term "virtual world."

maybe the thing to do would be to use the term "virtual world" in an
expressly non-normative manner in the charter and introduce a term
like "virtual social space" in the intro to further refine the
consensus view of what we're working on.

>
>
>> (why do we need to get hung up on the definition of the term when the
>> specifications do not use the term in a normative fashion? it's like
>> saying we can't work on HTTP because we can't decide whether resources
>> accessed by GOPHER are part of "the web.")
>
> IMHO, I think a decision was made when work on HTTP was begun and that
> was to exclude gopher sites. I don't know if that was done to allow
> the work to proceed technically or to deal with an issue that could
> well have been exactly like this.

sorry. i think i was unclear in my example. i wasn't saying that
GOPHER should be considered part of HTTP, but whether the term "the
web" should be considered to include information resources accessible
by a web browser or simply all resources accessible by HTTP. as it
turns out, browsers from that era dutifully spoke GOPHER as well as
HTTP.

> I believe our problem only comes when someone not privy to all the
> back conversation comes to the charter and misinterprets. I sense a
> decent consensus within this group but a lack of proper vocabulary to
> express the concepts.