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

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

morgaine, i don't think this is a consensus view of the protocol implementers.

MMOX was the effort to define inter-world interoperability. that
effort could not reach consensus in a reasonable time frame. this
effort was organized to constrain the problem domain to define
interoperability between systems that implement a virtual world, not
to define a protocol for inter-world interoperability.

the practical consequence of this constrained scope include:

a. we're not working on a protocol for interoperability between worlds
with radically different operating assumptions. (i.e. - this is not a
protocol intended to provide interoperability between WoW, EVE Online
and Second Life.)

b. we're not working on a protocol that requires all systems that
implement it to be part of the same "virtual world" (defined from the
perspective of user.) that is, deployers of systems that implement the
protocol may, but are not required to interoperate with other
deployers.

the OGPX effort does not preclude this work, but avoids it because it
does not want to repeat the failures of MMOX.

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Morgaine<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Kari, that was an excellent review of a long series of subthreads.
>
> You have identified something that the rest of us seem to have missed:  that
> OGP / VWRAP conflates the protocol(s) used to implement a single virtual
> world with the protocol(s) used to implement interop between multiple
> virtual worlds.  No wonder we have a severe problem.
>
> That was a very insightful observation, kudos.
>
> The protocol used to implement a given virtual world is an implementation
> detail of that world.
>
> Is VWRAP intended to be an implementation protocol for a VW, or an interop
> protocol between them?
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =====================================
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> ogpx mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>