Re: [ogpx] Virtual worlds versus the real world

Bringing up non-VWRAP virtual worlds here only to reject them is just a
straw man that is occasionally trotted out for no reason that I can
identity, and it derails discussions.

Nobody in this group discusses any virtual worlds except those which are
compatible with the VWRAP model and VWRAP service endpoints, except possibly
a newcomer who might need to be brought up to speed.  In that case then of
course we help them out.

At other times it amounts to a tactic for dismissing an argument, and I'm
going to make sure that I draw attention to it if it seems to be done on
purpose.

Morgaine,

=========================================

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) <
>> infinity@lindenlab.com> wrote:
>>
>> this is definitely cool stuff, but fwiw, i disagree that the purpos of
>>> this working group is to work on interop between virtual worlds.
>>>
>>
> (snip)
>
>
>> Consequently, we most certainly *are* working on interop between virtual
>> worlds, VWRAP-compatible ones naturally.
>>
>
> FWIW, I read Meadhbh's comment as "...between different VW
> technologies/types (as defined by protocol implementation)", so I don't see
> a disagreement between these statements.
>
> The distinction is between (1) attempting to define broad interop between
> all possible VWs (so I can TP from SL to Webkins and visit my son's
> creature) , and (2) defining basic operation of Agent/Region-style VWs with
> a protocol that therefore enables interop between conforming
> implementations.
>
> Anyone want to take on the task of collecting all of the definitions of
> "virtual world" that have been floated about, as an informational draft?
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>