Re: [ogpx] one virtual world, or many?

[Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>]

The network/internet analogy is great. I vote base hit.... and would
like to emphasize that, given current usage of the words, the answer
to

>     Are we connecting two virtual worlds or is the result a single
>     virtual world?

is yes, sort of.

As I understand it, VWRAP is designed to connect/allow
interoperability between two or more independent/distinct/individual
virtual environments/regions/worlds into what appears to the user as a
single environment/region/world/universe. This single
environment/region/world/universe is in fact multiple
independent/distinct/individual virtual environments/regions/worlds
whose boundaries could be administrative or technological but the
distinction matters not.

Is that right?

Kari






On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Dave CROCKER<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
> Pre-game.
>
> Confusion and disagreement that includes the term "virtual world" is proving
> tenacious, in spite of extensive and substantive discussion.  Typically,
> something this persistent means either that some concept(s) lack shared
> definition or that competing technical paradigms are present.
>
> As was noted many message ago, there's a good chance that much of the
> disagreement is really about the meaning of the term.  That is, that
> apparent
> disagreements about such things as scope of work is really about scope of
> this one term.  That, at least, is my own reading of the discussions.  I
> think people are using the term differently.  If we can get to the point of
> using it the same
> way, my sense is that we will find that disagreements about actual work to
> be done, and its use, are rather small.
>
> In other words, I think the persistence of debate that keeps using that term
> "virtual world" means we have to resolve it before we can make serious
> progress. These sorts of things never seem to go away without explicit
> resolution.  While much of the earlier attempts to resolve this look like
> they helped quite a bit, it seems clear that a bit more effort is needed.
>
>
>
> The wind-up.
>
> Since the crux of the challenge keeps coming back to what interoperability
> will
> or will not be provided -- with at least one additional point about whether
> the
> current work must be used internal to a service or only used /between/
> services
> -- permit me a moment of theft from Internet history and constructs.  I
> think it
> can be applicable here:
>
>   Network vs. Internetwork.
>
>   "A" virtual world vs. Multiple virtual worlds.
>
> But hold on.  I'm not necessarily going to suggest mapping the two sets as
> one-to-one directly...
>
> Originally, a network was a discrete technical set.  X.25.  NCP.  XNS.
> Netware.
> Whatever.  Both technology and administration had the same boundary.  Your
> network might use one technology and mine might use another.  But even if
> they
> used the same technology, one was mine and the other was yours.  So I tend
> to
> view interaction across administrative boundaries as far more interesting to
> internetworking than whether different technologies are used:
>
>   <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1775.html>
>
> The term Internet has come to mean a single, unified, global service.  It
> crosses administrative boundaries.  Does IBM internally operate a 'network'
> or
> an 'internetwork'?  Either choice is reasonable, depending on what is the
> focus. I think we don't need to resolve the equivalent question here.
>
> There is universal agreement that there is a single global service,
> comprising many independent smaller services, and that that single, larger
> thing is "The" Internet.
>
> What we tend to forget is that there probably are other Internets that don't
> (directly) interoperate with the global one.  They are off "The Internet"
> grid
> and are on their own.  They are likely also "an" Internet.  These days, they
> might be running TCP/IP, but they don't have to.  For example:
>
>   <http://www.dtnrg.org/wiki>
>
> Some uses of "virtual world" appear to mean an administrative boundary and
> others appear to mean a technical boundary. This is the sort of thing we
> need to resolve.
>
>
>
> The pitch.
>
> I suggest ignoring technical differences within an administrative domain and
> even across different administrative domains.  Simply, VWrap is used to
> connect together administrative domains running simulations.
>
>     I'm running one simulation and you are running another.  We use
>     VWrap to interoperate.
>
>     Are we connecting two virtual worlds or is the result a single
>     virtual world?
>
> Some other folk might not interoperate with our unified service.  They are
> running their own thing.  Are they running a different virtual world or,
> perhaps, a different set of multiple virtual worlds?
>
>
>
> The swing.
>
> I suggest that:
>
>     Any set of independent administrative domains that interoperate
>     together, using VWrap, creates a /single/ virtual world.
>
>     Each independent administrative domain is running /part/ of that single
>     virtual world.  (The part might be one Region, or Agent, or it might be
>     many of both or any combination.)
>
>     Hence, I am suggesting that an integrated VWrap environment has a
>     comparable quality to an integrated internet environment that we call
>     "The" Internet.  One service.
>
> If you are running a simulation that is not part of an integrated,
> interoperable
> VWrap environment, you are in a different virtual world.
>
>     If you are part of an interoperable VWrap service, you are in a
>     single virtual world.
>
> It doesn't matter what you run internally.  What matters is integration to
> the
> interoperable service using VWrap.
>
>
>
> Base hit or strikeout?
>
> d/
> --
>
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>