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

[Izzy Alanis <[e-mail]>]

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
>> >
>> >
>
>