Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

+1 Sean!

I've really been enthused and heartened by the rapid progress in Opensim on
such a wide variety of fronts, including multiple forms of interop.

Anyone who's been keeping a finger on the pulse of what's happening in
virtual worlds today can see the pent-up desire for having your own virtual
worlds and allowing good interop between them.  Undoubtedly there is a need
for restrictive worlds as well (often required for business or education),
and here we are of course embracing their needs as much as the needs of
people who wish to enjoy a high degree of inter-world travel.

No party is being excluded in VWRAP.  By focussing on the services that can
be put together in a variety of useful deployment patterns, anyone can
configure a world to their own specification and interoperate with other
worlds in accordance with their own chosen policies.  This includes both
ends of the spectrum, and points between.

As you say, the tourist model is completely realistic, and indeed it is
demanded widely.


Morgaine.






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

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Sean Hennessee <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Morgaine
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  also. just a show of hands. who's planning on implementing the tourist
>>>> model?
>>>>
>>> Almost everybody who will operate virtual worlds, I assume --- that could
>>> be
>>> hundreds of thousands of world operators, if not millions, mostly small.
>>>  We
>>> certainly can't foretell!  And we can't get them to raise a show of hands
>>> either. :-)
>>>
>>
>> you mean you think they're all going to be implementing their own
>> software? i think that's unrealistic. even with the http servers,
>> which i think we could agree is slightly less complicated than any
>> virtual world protocol would be, web site operators use one of a
>> handful of implementations: (Apache, IIS, WebSTAR?, ...)
>>
>
> I think this is completely realistic. With the progress that OpenSim is
> making towards standalone (SL Like) grids, there will very likely be
> services popping up all over the interweb providing standalone virtual
> worlds for free or at a very low cost, much like services today provide blog
> spaces, photo spaces, and a host of other web based services for free and
> for fee. I don't have to host my own Apache web server just to have a
> tumblr.com blog or a flickr.com photo site. The blog and photo site of the
> future will be SL like virtual worlds, (or perhaps more accurately, "virtual
> homes").
>
>  I doubt that it will be common to operate walled gardens once everyone
>>> else
>>> is allowing their users to travel freely among the huge diversity of the
>>> metaverse.  It certainly seems like a recipe for failure to deny tourism
>>> to
>>> one's residents as a matter of policy, given that tourism is so popular
>>> in
>>> the physical world today.
>>>
>>
>> well. the examples of large virtual worlds that exist today are, as
>> you call them, walled gardens.
>>
>
> This is only because the idea of treating your "virtual home" as its' own
> space that can have "virtual tourists" come and visit is only now being
> implemented in OpenSim with standalones and hypergrids. In the past the
> focus was more on creating a system too much like SL in the sense that SL is
> one huge virtual world. I would assume that "SL Like" implies the 3d
> experience that is SL and not also the hugeness that is SL.
>
> Peace,
> Sean
>
>
>>  However, this is a policy issue of course, and therefore not something
>>> that
>>> VWRAP will dictate.  We merely provide the mechanisms to allow tourism
>>> when
>>> desired, not mandate or deny it to any given world operator.
>>>
>>
>> i think it _is_ definitely important. we've set dates for the
>> publication of standard documentations, and i think it's unrealistic
>> to say that we are going to develop a standard that is infinitely
>> flexible. we will need to focus on a small collection of deployment
>> models. again, i have no problem including models that _will_ actually
>> be used. i'm just not sure it behooves us to spend a fair amount of
>> time ensuring our protocol flows work in deployment models that no one
>> is currently planning on deploying.
>>
>> there's very clearly interest from linden for the "second life" [1]
>> deployment model; intel has show a clear interest in the "cable beach"
>> deployment model; OpenSim's UGAIM/Grid Mode and standalone deployment
>> models. i'm just curious who is going to be coding software for the
>> "tourist model."
>>
>> -cheers.
>> -meadhbh/infinity
>>
>
> --
>
> Sean Hennessee
> Central Computing Support
> Office of Information Technology
> UC Irvine
>
>
> ... . .- -. /  .... . -. -. . ... ... . .
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>