Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

Especially since this is the Virtual World Region-Agent Protocol, I'm 
wondering where is "full" and "service level" in the region/agent 
dissection.


Izzy Alanis wrote:
> So, I'm still trying to understand your sentence:
>   
>> no amount of fudging about "service level interoperability" is going to overcome the lack of VW interoperability as a user would understand it.
>>     
> Certainly, a small amount of service level interop would go a long way
> to overcome VW interoperability.
>
> In your mind, how does service level interop *not* lead to "VW
> Interoperability"? This whole argument between service level interop
> and 'full' interop eludes me.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Morgaine
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>   
>> Izzy, it's truly simple, and I see that you understand it.� You have listed
>> a number of possible restrictions or constraints that could be applied to
>> limit or modify interop between worlds, but your list of questions is only
>> meaningful because you already understand what interop between virtual
>> worlds means at its most open and powerful.
>>
>> You are there already in your understanding! :-)
>>
>> When our protocols support such interoperation between virtual worlds,
>> restrictions can of course be placed on that interoperation by world
>> providers, just like an email service provider can place restrictions on who
>> can access their service, where people can send emails, the kinds of content
>> permitted, and so on.� It's totally normal for services on the Internet to
>> apply their own restrictions, and it would be no different for interoperable
>> VWs.
>>
>> Likewise for us, we know what interoperation between virtual worlds means in
>> concept (I described it in simple user language in my previous email), but
>> any individual deployment might reduce or limit that based on local policy.
>> It's not up to us to mandate local policy, but it is up to us to create a
>> protocol that provides interoperation between virtual worlds so that it's
>> available for those worlds that do want to interoperate.
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Izzy Alanis <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>     
>>> I'll second Mike's comment: I don�t know what it mean to have virtual
>>> world interop personally.
>>>
>>> Do I have to be able to teleport from one world to the next within the
>>> same viewer to qualify as "interop"? Or would it be OK if I was able
>>> to log in using different viewers/clients as long as my 'identity' was
>>> maintained? What if I had to have separate identities between virtual
>>> worlds, but could still access my bank of assets? What if I could
>>> maintain the concept of "identity" but not transfer assets/use a
>>> particular asset service? What if I couldn't access my assets from a
>>> particular asset service in a particular virtual world due to policy
>>> reasons (e.g. virtual world "A" doesn't like asset service provider
>>> "B")?
>>>
>>> �- Izzy
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Morgaine
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Right, so we do need to standardize �Service Level Interop�.� As has
>>>>> been
>>>>> pointed out its concrete enough you can actually do it and it would
>>>>> allow
>>>>> the assembly of virtual worlds based upon it.
>>>>>           
>>>> I think you misunderstood the point that I wrote, since you concluded
>>>> the
>>>> opposite.� No, it does not follow that we need to standardize "service
>>>> level
>>>> interop", because that does not give us interoperation between virtual
>>>> worlds.� It only allows us to standardize (as you correctly state) the
>>>> "assembly of virtual worlds", one world at a time, instead of
>>>> standardizing
>>>> their interoperation.� We don't need to standardize how VWs are
>>>> assembled,
>>>> it's not even our remit to do that because that's up to each provider.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> I don�t know what it mean to have virtual world interop personally.
>>>>>           
>>>> Why?� It's very easy to understand, and I would guess that every VW user
>>>> today who is using two or more virtual worlds like (say) OSgrid and
>>>> InWorldz
>>>> can probably describe it very eloquently.� I'll just repaste how I
>>>> described
>>>> it yesterday:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> We either have interoperability between worlds, in which an inhabitant
>>>>> can
>>>>> travel from one world to another and take their avatar and/or
>>>>> possessions
>>>>> with them, or else we don't have that.� It's black and white, and no
>>>>> amount
>>>>> of fudging about "service level interoperability" is going to overcome
>>>>> the
>>>>> lack of VW interoperability as a user would understand it.
>>>>>           
>>>> Interoperability between VWs is truly a simple concept, and users are
>>>> asking
>>>> for it continually and woeing its absence daily.� Its lack is so clear
>>>> and
>>>> self-evident and annoying that people even write export-import programs
>>>> to
>>>> try to alleviate the user "suffering" through its absence.� Frankly,
>>>> professing not to understand what it means is very bizarre.� All I can
>>>> suggest is, I'll try to clarify it further for you if you still don't
>>>> understand what it means.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Morgaine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ===========================
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>>> Of
>>>>> Morgaine
>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 8:01 PM
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Responding to two posts:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want service only, I think there is code implemented already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly as Dzonatas says.� We don't need to work on protocols for
>>>>> internal
>>>>> use by separate, isolated world services.� We have those already.� The
>>>>> ingredient that is mostly missing from the Virtual World arena is
>>>>> interoperability between such services, and that is the goal that has
>>>>> sparked extremely wide interest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so we do need to standardize �Service Level Interop�.� As has
>>>>> been
>>>>> pointed out its concrete enough you can actually do it and it would
>>>>> allow
>>>>> the assembly of virtual worlds based upon it.�� The point that some of
>>>>> this
>>>>> exists is a good one, there�s some existing practice and knowledge that
>>>>> can
>>>>> be leveraged.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Boroondas Gupte
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> d. interoperability between (instances of) any two virtual world
>>>>> systems
>>>>> conforming to the (to be defined) VWRAP standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly as Boroondas says.� Indeed, that is the interoperability goal
>>>>> sought by the majority of contributors here over the years, so this is
>>>>> nothing new. It's the feature that virtual worlds don't yet have, and
>>>>> that's
>>>>> why it's worthwhile to work on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, this is sensible and it�s achieved via the �standard services�
>>>>> defined above.� I don�t know what it mean to have virtual world interop
>>>>> personally.� It�s a nice ideal but in practice differences in policy,
>>>>> technology, etc, make it practically impossible to specify given the
>>>>> current
>>>>> state of �affairs.� ��We can�t even agree on a the data description
>>>>> protocol
>>>>> let alone how to handle policy across VW systems. �And that extends
>>>>> past
>>>>> business policy into technical issues like: if an �object� �is scripted
>>>>> how
>>>>> does that transfer to another VW. Who allocates the script resources.
>>>>> And
>>>>> of course there�s also creator�s rights vs. owner�s rights.� The list
>>>>> is
>>>>> extremely long and we can�t even agree on how services should talk and
>>>>> which
>>>>> there should be in a standard way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, the effort should focus on Service Level interoperability and the
>>>>> definition of a few fundamental building block services: i.e user
>>>>> service,
>>>>> inventory service, asset service.� I�d leave the simulator piece off
>>>>> for
>>>>> now.� If we get those right you can start to share user information
>>>>> between
>>>>> �virtual worlds�, locate and access inventory and define an objects
>>>>> characteristics inside a simulator.� And the simulator piece can evolve
>>>>> until its ready to be standardized.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>
>   


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant