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

[Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>]

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