Re: [ogpx] Definitions of terms to be used in my (our?) communication

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Carlo Wood<carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:08:13AM -0700, Meadhbh Siobhan wrote:
>> but before i comment on these terms, let me point out that while this
>> discussion is interesting and germane to the subject of virtual
>> worlds, it is a bit out of scope for a discussion about the charter.
>> so, can we just for right now, just use the terms that have been
>> defined in the way that they're defined and get through the charter
>> bashing?
>>
>> i PROMISE you, that we'll get back to terms in more detail, and
>> honestly, i like your use of the term "universe."
>
> that feels to me ... like pushing it through.

and saying that we don't want to start _any_ work before we all agree
on every term seems obstructionist to me.

>
>> in the current OGP/VWRAP documents, the term "island" and "galaxy" aren't used.
>
> great then it won't give rise to confusion
>
>> your use of the term "region" is different than the way it's described
>> in the intro doc. what you call a "region" below, we would call a
>> "region domain."
>
> a "region domain" is the smallest possible partition???
> I thought a region is a single 'sim' (in SL those 256x256 m^2 areas)

yes, a region is the smallest possible partition that is defined in
OGP/VWRAP. but OGP/VWRAP regions are not limited to SL's 256x256
geometry. also, we're not trying to force the use of "parcels" and
"estates" as part of OGP/VWRAP. they are, of course, an integral part
of our billing process, so Linden will still support them, and if
people think we need to publicly define the interface and definition
of these terms, we probably would.

but we don't think it's a requirement for non-second life regions to
support our billing infrastructure, so it's probably going to be
defined as a distinct set of resources/interfaces available on linden
region domain(s).

later on if everyone thinks such a thing SHOULD go in the protocol,
maybe, but i don't think people will.

>
>> what we call a "region" is the set of data used to
>> represent a collection of adjacent points in the virtual world. i'm
>
> you lost me there, comparing it with SL (PLEASE! just for clarity!),
> do you mean something smaller than 256x256 meter or something larger
> with endless sea as boundary?

for the purposes of OGP/VWRAP, a region is some data with a couple of
well defined interfaces queried by clients (either client applications
running on users' systems, other VWRAP servers or other information
services (read web applications.) one aspect of a region is it's
shape. the region may choose to define their shape as 256x256m if they
want, and most currently deployed SL regions will likely retain that
shape for the indefinite future. but there's no reason someone else
could define a region to be 128x128m or 512x512m or decide to use an
arbitrary 3d shape to define the bounds of the region.

and though VWRAP will define the concept of a region and SL will
define regions to be 256x256m in the near term, this doesn't mean you
can't define "sub-regions" or "super-regions" or "sectors" or "map
grids" or "stellar cartography instances" in your region domain.

>
>> hoping that the verbiage in the draft charter makes it clear that
>> services that export information about the region or provide an
>> interface to modify the region's state go through a single region
>> specific URI. the "simulator" is the server process that maintains the
>> region's state and processes service requests. the "simulator host" or
>> "region host" is the machine itself that the simulator process runs
>> on.
>
> I thought you just said that was a region domain

no. a "region" is the object graph. the "simulator" is the process
that implements the protocol. the "region domain" is the collection of
regions "owned" by one organization. the "region host" or "simulator
host" is the machine on which the simulator runs.

>
>> further, a "domain" is a collection of resources administered by a
>> single entity. thus a "region domain" is a collection of regions that
>> are run by the same entity, and presumably _could_ be governed by the
>> same terms of service, or more importantly to us, could potentially be
>> considered a single end entity in the trust model.
>
> you said "what we call a "region" is the set of data used to
> represent a collection of adjacent points in the virtual world"
> and "a "region domain" is a collection of regions..."
> Thus a region domain is adjacent? Or not?

a region domain is a collection of collections. the protocol does not
flatten collections.

>
>> we haven't put the term "adjacent region" into the doc, and now that i
>> see you talking about it, i think it was an oversight not to. or
>> rather, maybe just to talk about "adjacency" in general. for people
>> who are unfamiliar with SL, adjacent regions are simply regions that
>> are next to each other in the geometry of the virtual world. in second
>> life, a region communicates with adjacent regions so the original
>
> see? a region IS a sim! Then that is the smallest partition, no??
> (partition as in 'able to run on separate hardware'; definitely not
> talking about parcels)

huh? a region is a region and a sim is a sim.

>
>> region can tell the client the state of assets it's managing, if the
>> client needs to know about it and policy says the client can access
>> that information. *whew* in SL, the term "island" sometimes means
>> regions that have no adjacent regions (i.e. - they're out in the
>> virtual ocean, all by themselves) or about a virtual landscape that
>> looks like an island. (obviously, the former is more interesting to
>> this group than the latter at this moment.)
>
> so we have consensus there ((a set of) regions that have no adjacent regions)
> I just add that it's run by a single administration

yeah. it's thought that a region will have one root administrator, and
may have 0 or more adjacent regions.

that being said.. we have to be careful when we define who gets to
administer regions in region domains or any subordinate organizations
the region or region domain introduces. i don't want to define things
in a way that OSGrid has problems. and we're going to retain the
feature of our system that estate owners can do things that normal
users can't. but we don't want to force everyone to adopt this model,
so we're not pushing for it to be in the spec, 'cause we really think
there are people out there who don't want to be burdened with
artifacts of our billing model.

>
>> the terms "land" and "continent" are not defined in the spec. SL uses
>> "continents" for administrative and (some) billing purposes. we are
>> not trying to foist this aspect of SL off on the unsuspecting public.
>> that is, it works well for us to divide things into continents, and if
>> someone other than Linden wants to do this, good on ya. but, requiring
>> that this be a part of the specification is not harmonious with our
>> objective of not having people say bad things about us.
>
> no reason not to use the terms from now on on this list.

yes. there are reasons not to use them. they have no normative
definition and asking people to accept artifacts of our billing model
is asking for trouble.

>
>> "galaxy" is also not defined in the spec, or by any of implementors
>> who worked on OGP over the last 2 years.
>
> no reason not to use it on this list.

why not call it a cartographic set?

>
>> "virtual world" is defined informally as discussed earlier on this
>> list. i know morgaine frequently uses the term "region domain" to
>> describe what we would call a "virtual world."
>
> Yes, Morgaine/Kari/me say: "virtual world" < "region domain", or so
> we thought. You say: "region domain" < "virtual world", and still
> there is no need to define these terms more clearly, right?

yes, but we don't have the need to define the term "virtual world."

>
>> "VWRAP Universe" is not defined now, and i'm generally loathe to
>> introduce new terms, but i have to admit, i kinda like this one. but
>> let's talk about it more later.
>
> not important

LOL. i say i like something and you assert it's irrelevant.

>
>> about "MMOX Universe.." as far as i can tell, no one is working on
>> MMOX currently, so we might want to say "non-VWRAP universe" to
>> describe universes that are not VWRAPish.
>
> even less important

huh? you are trying to tell me we should define things that are not
VWRAP as "non-VWRAP" instead of "MMOX" and i tell you there seems to
be no one working on MMOX and you think this is unimportant? really?

>
> Now please do the reverse: start with my descriptions and then
> give terms that we can use ON THIS LIST - not in the protocol, or
> drafts or whatever document - just here - so that we UNDERSTAND
> eachother!
>
> Let me fill in what I THINK you have as term...
>
>> > A) A smallest partition
>
> I still think you call this 'region': in principle it is
> possible to run every region on a different host/machine,
> there is nothing smaller that could be run on a separate
> machine.

i could care less how many machines it's run on. a region has a single
URI used to request its services.

>
>> > B) A collection of adjacent regions run by a single administration
>
> you have no term... but we need one.
> Make one up, or lets use 'island'

fine. you can call it an island. it is unimportant for the definition
of the protocol. what is important is that regions have 0 or more
adjacent regions and that regions are members of a region domain.

>
>> > C) A collection of adjacent regions's run by different administrations
>> >   (which very likely use the same TOS etc)
>
> idem / 'continent'

again. feel free to use whatever terminology you want to use.

>
>> > D) A collection of continent's that are not adjacent but still fall
>> >   under the same TOS, likely use the same inter-world protocols
>> >   and organisation-specific extensions etc (likely, they will
>> >   have their own website and their own Abuse Report team etc).
>
> *** THIS IS THE REASON THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CHARTER ***
> because: you don't HAVE a term for this!

well. sorry you don't want to play with us.

>
> That collapses D and E into one, and that is unacceptable.
>
>> > E) A collection of Virtual World's that have totally different
>> >   administrations and possibly different TOS etc, but which
>> >   interoperate (ie, you can pass on a Landmark of one VW to
>> >   a person you meet in another VW).
>
> You consistently call this 'virtual world'

we do not use the term "virtual world" in a normative fashion.

>
> --
> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>