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

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

carlo.

OGP/VWRAP is the continuation of a standardization effort that has
been ongoing for about two years.

there is a history of using the terms we have listed, and we even have
deployed systems that are based on earlier versions of these specs.

if you sense reticence to stop work because people involved in this
effort choose to use a different set of definitions than the ones
you're promoting, i'm sorry.

at the end of the day, there are a number of us who would like to
continue working on virtual worlds standardization and feel we can do
it without applying a definition to a COMPLETELY non-normative term.

i am disappointed that you do not wish to continue working with us,
but i believe is speak for many of us when i say that there are much
more important things we can talk about. there is NOT consensus to
apply a definition to a non-normative term, but there is consensus to
continue working on this problem domain.

i support your effort to refine a definition of the term "virtual
world," but as the term does not appear normatively in any
specification produced to date, i have to say, your request to stop
all work on this effort until it _is_ defined satisfactorily to all
parties seems a bit obstructionist.

i am happy to continue to work on a definition with you, but not in
this forum and not until the charter is finished.

i truly value your contributions, but the reason we are here it to
define interoperability protocols, not to quibble about the definition
of terms that do not need to be defined.

-sincerely
-meadhbh hamrick

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'm sorry you just ignored my list :(
> Just quoting it, and then refusing to make an effort to give
> those concepts a term...
>
> As you will have noted... I NEEDED those terms in each and every
> post of me since I posted this list.
>
> So far I used 'A', 'C', 'D' and 'E' in my posts, but I refuse
> to continue to do that.
>
> If there are a few here that refuse to define a few terms for
> the sake of discussions (on this list) then I will, and I will
> consistently keep using those terms.
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 09:05:57AM -0700, Joshua Bell wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>     I think that any effort to work on the final wording
>>     should be stopped until we finally agree on what "virtual world" means...
>>
>>
>> Please note that we are attempting to craft a CHARTER at this point that
>> describes the problem space that a working group will tackle. Do you feel that
>> we can't proceed with the creation of a working group until specific
>> terminology is nailed down?
>>
>>
>>     I understand that you don't want to define what virtual world means,
>>     in which case you shouldn't use it at all in the charter and also
>>     not in the protocol name (VWrap).
>>
>>
>> I believe "virtual world" is as well defined as "web site". It should not be
>> used in a normative fashion, but is extremely clear to lay-persons what is
>> under discussion, and is clear enough to distinguish the problem domain from
>> others (i.e. it's not tackling email, IPv6, etc).
>>
>> I assert that this is sufficient for the charter. (And, personally, beyond.)
>>
>>
>>     A) A smallest partition
>>     B) A collection of adjacent A's run by a single administration
>>     C) A collection of adjecent B's run by different administrations (which
>>     very likely use the same TOS etc)
>>     D) A collection of C's that are not adjacent but still fall under the same
>>     TOS etc.
>>     E) A collection of D's that have totally different administrations and
>>     possibly different TOS etc, but which interoperate.
>>     F) The whole of all E's that do not interoperate, but still use VWRAP.
>>     G) The rest that use the term "virtual world", but do not use VWRAP.
>>
>>
>> If we were to agree that consensus terminology for the above concepts was
>> something we needed to come up with, wouldn't a Working Group be a great place
>> to try and achieve that consensus?
>>
>>
>>     Please don't reply with "we don't want to define this" :p
>>     We NEED to define this, or we can't TALK about this!
>>
>>
>> HTTP can be defined irrespective of a formal definition for "web site".
>>
>> Both technical and marketing terms are extremely valuable, but shouldn't be
>> confused.
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ogpx mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>