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

[Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>]

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]>