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

[<[e-mail]>]

I agree with this. As an example if you look at the DirectX specification or
Shader 1 specification. It states these are the capabilities you must have
to be compliant.

 

I could see something like;

 

VWRAP 0: A space that supports 3d coordinates, maybe time,

 

VWRAP 1: Simple teleporting, maybe just a URL/URI specification on how to
enter a point in another space.  We do this with web sites, we teleport into
a specific page.

 

VWRAP 2: Teleporting with continue presence, means you have to be able to
identify yourself, and be kind of a single sign-on kind of flow, maybe give
references to avatar mesh and animations.  (gets more tricky here because of
these can be in different formats) .  We would need to define the avatar
manifest which can be used to define the avatars objects, attachment points,
animation names.

 

VWRAP 3:  Rez an object that originates from an external source.

 

These are quick examples.

 

I do see some challenges with even this, because something like chat may or
may not be available in any of these specifications.

 

I don't really see the need to mention the term virtual world, I think we
have much more specific terms to use.  Virtual world has something like 17
definitions in the dictionary.

 

For me the formats of the data are at least as important if not more
important than the protocols.  I have many ways to transfer things.  Also
the protocols and communications can be very scene specific but things like
a definition of an avatar I think can be more easily defined and used across
many protocols.

 

K.

 

 

 

  _____  

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Freedman
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 12:50 PM
To: Morgaine
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual
worlds or not

 

Hello,

 

I believe the key is to have (in completely unambiguous language) a listing
of features that would be supported by the greater VWRAP standard. A
definitive listing of features, rather than use cases, seems like a more
rational way to proceed. This can likely be distilled from the existing
drafts. Also, as Meadhbh points out, it is important to not tie the standard
to any existing protocol suite. As the VWRAP standard evolves, groups will
be able to adopt it. Interoperability between VWRAP and "Second Life" style
virtual worlds (or WoW or Eve Online or Minecraft) is outside the scope of
this process. Which isn't to say it would not be awesome ;)

 

Also, if we are careful, we do not exclude any type of client. The various
transport and application level protocols needed by VWRAP are accessible
from phat clients and web clients alike. There should be no need to describe
the ideal end clients as we would already have a listing of supported
feature sets.

 

Cheers,

 

Jonathan

 

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>
wrote:

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Freedman <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>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.

 

That sounds reasonable to me, Jonathan.  I believe that your first sentence
reflects everyone's understanding of our goals ever since we formed the
working group.  Only now has this odd "no interop between virtual worlds"
slant been placed on our goals.

Judging by the responses received here, it's clear that everyone else is
affirming in one way or another their interest in virtual worlds that
interoperate.  I certainly am.  I hope that we can confirm it as a matter of
record with the help of the WG Chairs.


Morgaine.





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

 

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Freedman <[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 <[e-mail]>
wrote:

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Mike Dickson <[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 .

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:

On 09/19/2010 10:41 PM, Morgaine wrote: 

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap



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





-- 
Jonathan Freedman
President
Open Metaverse Foundation
[phone]

 


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




-- 
Jonathan Freedman
President
Open Metaverse Foundation
[phone]