Re: [vwrap] What abstract type systems already exist?

Joshua Bell <> Mon, 09 May 2011 23:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E74E0836 for <>; Mon, 9 May 2011 16:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oEOjx9iNzNRZ for <>; Mon, 9 May 2011 16:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E0FE0851 for <>; Mon, 9 May 2011 16:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so3481125pzk.31 for <>; Mon, 09 May 2011 16:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e20mr4252009wfg.129.1304985064312; Mon, 09 May 2011 16:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 9 May 2011 16:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Joshua Bell <>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 16:50:44 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd2285a32118d04a2e08353"
Subject: Re: [vwrap] What abstract type systems already exist?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 23:57:24 -0000

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Boroondas Gupte

> *What abstract type systems do currently exist *("exist" as in published
> and sufficiently documented. Don't have to be formally standardized, though
> if they are, that's a plus.)* and how do they compare to LLSD?*

This is an excellent question.

For what it's worth, it's possible that at least the first part of this
question has been explored as it relates to virtual worlds by the IEEE P1828
working group on virtual
worlds. I'm on the mailing list (as are some other VWRAP list members, I
believe) but confess to not having spent any significant time engaged with
the group.

What I do know is that P1828 members have performed a number of technology
surveys. The working group is not focused on any particular architecture for
virtual worlds (as chartered, VWRAP has a fairly specific approach in mind),
and is instead looking broadly at possible technologies to embrace as "best
practices" for virtual worlds. The P1828 working group's discussion list is - you might find it
worthwhile to peruse archives and/or engage in discussions with that group
regarding this and other issues where consensus on a new or converging
design is not the driving factor (as it tends to be within IETF groups) but
exploring existing technologies for suitability within a problem domain.

NOTE: The IEEE doubtless has different intellectual property rules applying
to discussion on its lists than the IETF, so make sure to read whatever
equivalent of the Note Well exists over yonder.

-- Josh