Re: [ogpx] Proposal: Change OGPX to...

["Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <[e-mail]>]

Well, that's why I qualified it with the VW first.   :-)

So I actually think the grid part *is* appropriate since SL and the worlds being modeled are laid out in one. As opposed say to Activeworlds or Croquet which are more portal based.

So I understand wanting to avoid the confusion with the general grid term but in this case I actually think Grid is important.  OGP is confusing since its not descriptive enough.  I was hoping with the VWGP thingy you're essentially describing exactly what it is. A virtual world protocol for worlds laid out in a grid.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Infinity Linden [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 1:09 PM
To: Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)
Cc: Joshua Bell; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Proposal: Change OGPX to...

'cause we're trying to avoid the word "grid."

before the F2F in stockholm, i was one of the most vocal proponents
for keeping OGP. we had a fair amount of history with the name, and i
thought it made sense to keep the name to avoid the confusion a new
name would bring.

right before the BoF, i remember Dave Crocker (and maybe others)
saying something like "you know... some people are going to think this
is not a virtual worlds protocol, but one for provisioning services
and managing a grid or cloud."

my response was (and i'm paraphrasing here,) "nonsense! everyone reads
every word of every working group charter and knows what every other
group is working on!"

immediately after the BoF, someone came up and said.. "yeah. that was
an interesting BoF, but i thought it would be a discussion of managing
grids, you know, regular grids."

so. yes. i have eaten a bit of crow and am now a convert to the idea
that the term "grid" in the group or protocol name is confusing since
the protocol we're defining could work on a grid, a cloud, a cluster
or even a single host (for a small virtual world.)

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Dickson, Mike (ISS
Software)<[e-mail]> wrote:
> How about VWGP.  "Virtual World Grid Protocol".
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joshua Bell
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 12:27 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [ogpx] Proposal: Change OGPX to...
>
> Hey gang,
>
> One of the charter issues we identified coming out of Stockholm was
> the name (for both the group and protocol suite). Open Grid Protocol
> (OGP)" is historical, used to describe interop trials from 2008, and
> the name was carried forward to the BoF/mailing list (with an "X" for
> good measure). Linden Lab employees, OpenSim developers and Second
> Life residents frequently use the term "grid" to describe the
> collection of systems responsible for providing virtual world
> services, even if that set of systems would more accurately be
> described by the terms "cluster" or "cloud" (or term-of-the-week...),
> playing off the grid-like organization of regions on a map.
>
> We received repeated feedback that "grid" was confusing, both on the
> list and at Stockholm, in the broader context of the IETF. This was
> underscored by at least one person who attended the OGPX BoF in
> Stockholm saying they anticipated hearing a discussion about grid and
> cloud computing services.
>
> A few alternatives to OGP have been offered, such as "Region Access
> Protocol (RAP)" and "Agent / Region Interaction Protocol (ARIP)". The
> former discounts the importance of the agent oriented aspects of the
> protocol, the latter discounts the "access" aspect of the protocol
> which underscores the RESTful nature of the conceptual objects on
> either end of a protocol transaction.
>
> From off-list discussions, here are some new suggestions:
>
> * "Agent Based Open Virtual Environments (ABOVE)" - (as a group name?)
> * "Open Virtual Entity and Region (OVER)" - (as a protocol name?)
>
> These have the advantage of being concise, fairly accurate,
> pronounceable, keeping "Virtual" in the name, slightly "cute" but not
> overly so. They are not humorous or ironic and don't reference
> pop-culture. They don't overload "IP" (yay) and avoid "P" in the name
> (the dreaded "ATM machine" syndrome.)
>
> Taking these as serious suggestions, could we get rough consensus on
> either/both of these? Last call for objections/alternatives?
>
> (To maintain continuity of discussion, we should keep the OGPX mailing
> list and other trappings until an actual working group is chartered.)
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>