Re: [vwrap] Relationship between Avatar/Agent and Asset Service?

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote:

>
> so "virtual worlds level interop" is less interesting, IMHO, since it
> requires participants to effectively implement all services if they
> want to participate in the virtual world.



No it does not.  Any virtual world is free to implement as few or as many
services itself as it wants, or to choose 3rd party services in their place,
or none at all, or any combination of these strategies.  This is why David
produced his VWRAP Deployments document, to highlight the total flexibility
that would exist.

As to "less interesting" ... well virtually all VW users who reside in more
than one world would disagree that it is "less interesting".  In fact, they
do often state in no uncertain terms how hugely desirable such interop would
be, and how extremely annoying it is to live without it, like RL planets
lacking any means of transport between them.

What's "less interesting" is producing a protocol that produces walled
gardens and provides nill interop between them, because that is what we have
already today.


Morgaine.





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

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Hey Izzy,
>
> FWIW... despite what morgaine says, the original members of this group
> were actually interested in "service level interop." and here's the
> use case.
>
> part of the reason Linden was interested in open protocols was so we
> could attempt to become the center of a much larger virtual ecosystem.
> the vision we shared with some of our partners was a world where you
> could log into Second Life or OpenSIm instance with your facebook or
> twitter credentials. or google. or yahoo! or OSGrid or Linden / Second
> Life. we also wanted to allow individual organizations (either your
> corporate IT department or a commercial online service like the
> Wikimedia commons) to act as an asset server for your inventory. we
> wanted to give individual grid deployers (or even individual users)
> the ability to pick who routed their voice and audio packets.
>
> these are just a few examples of the use cases we wanted to support
> that we felt justified "service level interop."
>
> people who wanted to be able to walk from one world to the other,
> could still do that, but only if both virtual worlds supported enough
> services to move avatars between them.
>
> so "virtual worlds level interop" is less interesting, IMHO, since it
> requires participants to effectively implement all services if they
> want to participate in the virtual world.
>
> now... Linden, IBM and Intel seem to have de-prioritized their
> participation in this group, so it's certainly a valid thing to say
> "hey, let's focus on full-on VW interop." but ultimately, this will be
> limiting your participation to a much smaller community of deployers.
> and at the end of the day, you're going to have to specify services
> as... well... services, so the VW interop thing has always seemed like
> a red herring at worst and an artificial constraint at best.
>
> the current charter was developed at a time when "service level
> interop" was the assumption, which is why we split off each service
> into a different document. the charter was also too small a document
> to capture the assumptions of the types of systems we wanted to work
> with, which is why in 2009 Dave Crocker recommended we put a bare
> minimum in the charter with the understanding that the intro doc would
> expand that understanding.
>
> so... if peeps here want to continue with service level interop,
> that's fine. we _may_ be able to keep the same charter and even some
> parts of the intro doc. if we want to go with full-on interop between
> OpenSim instances, that will probably necessitate a change in the
> charter and definitely a change in the intro.
>
> just my 2 cents.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Izzy Alanis <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Starting new thread as the previous one is becoming too unwieldily.
> >
> > Morgaine said:
> >> 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.
> >
> > The world is full of shades of grey.
> >
> > Is there an assumption that an Avatar has/uses one (and only one?)
> > "Asset Service" -- that I have a single repository of possessions to
> > take? Can I have and use different asset services? Can I use multiple
> > asset services? Can people share?
> >
> >  - Izzy
> > _______________________________________________
> > vwrap mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>