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

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

well.. fwiw... we're not baking the "grid" concept into this protocol.
it's appropriate for worlds that are grids, toroids, spheres,
cylinders or defined by a tensor field. the only requirement is that
the worlds use a 3 dimensional vector to denote locations in the world
and that the world is piecewise smooth.

but yes. in non-grid cases, both the client and the server would have
to agree a priori what the shape of the world is, and all the current
participants are only defining grid-based worlds. so your point is
definitely valid.

at this point i don't know that i care what the name is as long as we
can reach consensus and the name isn't confusing.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Dickson, Mike (ISS
Software)<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
>>
>