Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual worlds or not

["Hurliman, John" <[e-mail]>]

This sounds like a reasonable approach to me. It seems to me that the reasons for having separate intro and foundation docs are historic, and a new iteration could merge these.

John

On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:27 AM, "Jonathan Freedman" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hello everyone,

From what I can tell the drafts do support interoperability between the same *class* of virtual world. The catch is that the language needs to be significantly clearer. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the introduction document should drop all references to use cases, focus on describing the context (sandbox virtual worlds) and then be merged with the foundation document.

I have approached editing the Intro document several times and it always ended in despair. I believe the only rational way to move forward is to integrate it into the Foundation document as a simple overview of the context and proceed from there. If others support this direction, I would be honoured to proceed with the first cut of such a merge.

I do want to state that interoperability between the *same class* of virtual worlds seems like the proper end goal. The language needs to be unambiguous and there is no point in distracting the consumer (of the ID)  with discussions of use cases. Use cases, deployment strategies and the like should be left up to interpretation. The formal documentation needs to focus on the protocol rather than implementation.

Regards,

Jonathan Freedman


On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Morgaine <<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Mike Dickson <<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Put another way we're not specifying a mechanism for interconnection between very different technologies (or more appropriately approaches to virtual worlds).


Unfortunately, no Mike, it's much worse than that.  Even if the technologies of the worlds in question are not only compatible but IDENTICAL, Meadhbh claims that we are not creating a protocol for interop BETWEEN those worlds.  At all, whatsoever.

This cannot be allowed to stand, otherwise the entire purpose of VWRAP as an interop protocol disappears, and instead VWRAP becomes a protocol for building standalone, isolated worlds.  That is not what we're here for, and it has never been --- we have affirmed the goal of interoperation between VWs time and again on this list, repeatedly.

This issue needs to be cleared up without ambiguity.  We can't have a prolific draft writer writing drafts that do not reflect the goals voiced by almost everyone in this group since OGPX/VWRAP began.  Crista's post is merely the latest expression of concern of many.

There is a clear disconnect here between the goal of non-interoperating worlds, and the much more useful goal of VW interoperation that virtually everyone else has been discussing and desiring.  We already have non-interoperating worlds, lots of them!  Note that even Joshua mentions interoperation of VWs in his latest post a few weeks ago, in which he welcomed discussion of "protocols for data transport between virtual world instances" -- <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00253.html> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00253.html .

This needs resolving formally, otherwise our progress on resolving the issues of VW interop is completely blocked.


Morgaine.





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

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Mike Dickson <<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
On 09/19/2010 10:41 PM, Morgaine wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick <<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

secondly, VWRAP is not now, nor has it ever been a protocol to enable
interoperability BETWEEN virtual worlds.
...
in short, the consensus of this group has generally been to describe
the mechanisms one could use to build a single virtual world but does
not dictate that this world be a singleton.


This does not reflect any consensus expressed in this group whatsoever.
I suspect we're getting wrapped around the axle on terminology and what "single virtual world" means.  At least I'd like to interpret it that way as it then matches the discussion over the past months.  Put another way we're not specifying a mechanism for interconnection between very different technologies (or more appropriately approaches to virtual worlds).  It's a single virtual world because it shares a single set of assumptions about how the services that make it up work together to provide services.  If I change in a significant way a service that doesn't match what VWRAP documents then I'm not able to participate in the VWRAP virtual world any longer.

The comment about a singleton is on target I think with this interpretation.  I can create a walled garden that doesn't interconnect with other "services".  It's using VWRAP and so a part of the VWRAP "Virtual World".

If thats not a correct interpretation then yes we have a huge issue.  If it is correct then perhaps we need to refine how we define terms since its caused alot of confusion.

Mike



_______________________________________________
vwrap mailing list
<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap



_______________________________________________
vwrap mailing list
<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap




--
Jonathan Freedman
President
Open Metaverse Foundation
[phone]