Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my (our?) communication

[Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:08:13AM -0700, Meadhbh Siobhan wrote:
> but before i comment on these terms, let me point out that while this
> discussion is interesting and germane to the subject of virtual
> worlds, it is a bit out of scope for a discussion about the charter.
> so, can we just for right now, just use the terms that have been
> defined in the way that they're defined and get through the charter
> bashing?
> 
> i PROMISE you, that we'll get back to terms in more detail, and
> honestly, i like your use of the term "universe."

that feels to me ... like pushing it through.

> in the current OGP/VWRAP documents, the term "island" and "galaxy" aren't used.

great then it won't give rise to confusion

> your use of the term "region" is different than the way it's described
> in the intro doc. what you call a "region" below, we would call a
> "region domain."

a "region domain" is the smallest possible partition???
I thought a region is a single 'sim' (in SL those 256x256 m^2 areas)

> what we call a "region" is the set of data used to
> represent a collection of adjacent points in the virtual world. i'm

you lost me there, comparing it with SL (PLEASE! just for clarity!),
do you mean something smaller than 256x256 meter or something larger
with endless sea as boundary?

> hoping that the verbiage in the draft charter makes it clear that
> services that export information about the region or provide an
> interface to modify the region's state go through a single region
> specific URI. the "simulator" is the server process that maintains the
> region's state and processes service requests. the "simulator host" or
> "region host" is the machine itself that the simulator process runs
> on.

I thought you just said that was a region domain

> further, a "domain" is a collection of resources administered by a
> single entity. thus a "region domain" is a collection of regions that
> are run by the same entity, and presumably _could_ be governed by the
> same terms of service, or more importantly to us, could potentially be
> considered a single end entity in the trust model.

you said "what we call a "region" is the set of data used to
represent a collection of adjacent points in the virtual world"
and "a "region domain" is a collection of regions..."
Thus a region domain is adjacent? Or not?

> we haven't put the term "adjacent region" into the doc, and now that i
> see you talking about it, i think it was an oversight not to. or
> rather, maybe just to talk about "adjacency" in general. for people
> who are unfamiliar with SL, adjacent regions are simply regions that
> are next to each other in the geometry of the virtual world. in second
> life, a region communicates with adjacent regions so the original

see? a region IS a sim! Then that is the smallest partition, no??
(partition as in 'able to run on separate hardware'; definitely not
talking about parcels)

> region can tell the client the state of assets it's managing, if the
> client needs to know about it and policy says the client can access
> that information. *whew* in SL, the term "island" sometimes means
> regions that have no adjacent regions (i.e. - they're out in the
> virtual ocean, all by themselves) or about a virtual landscape that
> looks like an island. (obviously, the former is more interesting to
> this group than the latter at this moment.)

so we have consensus there ((a set of) regions that have no adjacent regions)
I just add that it's run by a single administration

> the terms "land" and "continent" are not defined in the spec. SL uses
> "continents" for administrative and (some) billing purposes. we are
> not trying to foist this aspect of SL off on the unsuspecting public.
> that is, it works well for us to divide things into continents, and if
> someone other than Linden wants to do this, good on ya. but, requiring
> that this be a part of the specification is not harmonious with our
> objective of not having people say bad things about us.

no reason not to use the terms from now on on this list.

> "galaxy" is also not defined in the spec, or by any of implementors
> who worked on OGP over the last 2 years.

no reason not to use it on this list.

> "virtual world" is defined informally as discussed earlier on this
> list. i know morgaine frequently uses the term "region domain" to
> describe what we would call a "virtual world."

Yes, Morgaine/Kari/me say: "virtual world" < "region domain", or so
we thought. You say: "region domain" < "virtual world", and still
there is no need to define these terms more clearly, right?

> "VWRAP Universe" is not defined now, and i'm generally loathe to
> introduce new terms, but i have to admit, i kinda like this one. but
> let's talk about it more later.

not important

> about "MMOX Universe.." as far as i can tell, no one is working on
> MMOX currently, so we might want to say "non-VWRAP universe" to
> describe universes that are not VWRAPish.

even less important

Now please do the reverse: start with my descriptions and then
give terms that we can use ON THIS LIST - not in the protocol, or
drafts or whatever document - just here - so that we UNDERSTAND
eachother!

Let me fill in what I THINK you have as term...

> > A) A smallest partition 

I still think you call this 'region': in principle it is
possible to run every region on a different host/machine,
there is nothing smaller that could be run on a separate
machine.

> > B) A collection of adjacent regions run by a single administration

you have no term... but we need one.
Make one up, or lets use 'island'

> > C) A collection of adjacent regions's run by different administrations
> >   (which very likely use the same TOS etc)

idem / 'continent'

> > D) A collection of continent's that are not adjacent but still fall
> >   under the same TOS, likely use the same inter-world protocols
> >   and organisation-specific extensions etc (likely, they will
> >   have their own website and their own Abuse Report team etc).

*** THIS IS THE REASON THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CHARTER ***
because: you don't HAVE a term for this!

That collapses D and E into one, and that is unacceptable.

> > E) A collection of Virtual World's that have totally different
> >   administrations and possibly different TOS etc, but which
> >   interoperate (ie, you can pass on a Landmark of one VW to
> >   a person you meet in another VW).

You consistently call this 'virtual world'

-- 
Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>