Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> 1. Agent Based Open Virtual Environments Working Group - ABOVE ("above")
> 2. Virtual World Region/Agent Protocol Working Group - VWRAP ("v-wrap")
>

I support the *Region/Agent* part of #2 because it refers to  the central
idea in this proposal that makes it distinct from other interop protocols.
In particular, it distinguishes this work from other proposals that would be
in the scope of MMOX.

In contrast, the *Virtual World* part of #2 just adds fuel to the problems
that have been highlighted here about the redefinition of this phrase in OGP
compared to its use by everyone else in this sphere.  That issue isn't going
away, and will become ever harder as we begin to focus on use cases for
cross-world interop.

Building upon *Region/Agent*, various other possible constructs for the
group name come to mind.  Note that the "world[s]" issue can be avoided
while retaining *Virtual*:


   - Region/Agent Domain Interop Group -- RADIG
   - Virtual Region/Agent Interop Group -- VRAIG
   - Virtual Region/Agent eXchange group -- VRAX group
   - Virtual Region/Agent Interop X -- VRAIX, X = {proto, group, apps}
   - Virtual Region/Agent Domain group -- VRAD group
   - Virtual Domains Interop Protocol/Group -- VDIP/VDIG
   - and so on ("Virtual Domains" actually reflects the central idea well)

Note that simply dropping "World" from your #2 achieves the same thing and
makes it more pronounceable:


   - Virtual Region/Agent Protocol / Working Group - VRAP ("vrap")


As you pointed out, the group name is not as crucial as the eventual
protocol name, but as Infinity mentioned, the group name suggests a de facto
protocol name so we can't leave the latter dangling for too long.  I suspect
that a protocol name that differs from the group name will just sow
confusion, and doesn't add value.

It may be best to go through this ordeal just once.


Morgaine.





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

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It seems like we're close on draft charter text; the recent discussion has
> generated some good additions and clarifications to the text. We still need
> a name, though.
>
> Given a lack of consensus on any of the proposals for a protocol name, I
> suggest we reduce the problem to just a group name, and defer any protocol
> naming for now.
>
> * The working group name is for "casual" use; i.e. it will never be
> published in an RFC
> * The working group should have a limited lifetime, and dissolve; so
> something "eternal" or "ideal" is actually a bad idea
> * It should be clear how to pronounce and spell, so that it can be
> communicated in voice
> * It should be recognizable when seen on an IETF agenda
>
> I agree with Morgaine's points earlier on this thread about names, but feel
> they primarily apply to protocol names, except for the excellent suggestion
> that this be something relatively unique in Google searches. That is
> somewhat in (healthy) conflict with the above points, though.
>
> Going back to Infinity's suggestion of listing top choices, here are mine
> from the floated proposals. I don't really have a #3. Again, I'm focusing on
> proposed working group names only, so in context these would be
>
> 1. Agent Based Open Virtual Environments Working Group - ABOVE ("above")
> 2. Virtual World Region/Agent Protocol Working Group - VWRAP ("v-wrap")
>
> If you believe that the latest rev of the draft charter text is acceptable
> as a basis for forming a working group (and remember, a group can
> re-charter!), please reply with your top picks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>