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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

some of us on this list are interested in deploying only a subset of
services, so it is FAR from being settled. when you say "we already
agree" i feel you're dismissing my concerns.


I had hoped that this wasn't going to be reopened, but I think we're still
OK.  Your concerns ARE being met.  Your preferred deployments are every bit
as important and as relevant and as supported as those of people who wish
their VWs to interoperate.  Single services are a perfectly valid
deployment, one possible subset of the overall picture of multiple
interoperating worlds.

Joshua indicated that he believed that we are settled on a common goal but
are using different terminologies, and Barry indicated that he hoped that we
were arriving at a common goal too.  I believed that to be the case as well.

And the evidence on the list indicates very clearly that we are working
towards common goals.

Since we have been talking about interop BETWEEN virtual worlds in hundreds
of emails, it is clear that this is what we are engaged in, even when using
the terminology of services.  This does not mean that all VWRAP deployments
will involve interop between VWs of course.  Any world that does not wish to
interoperate with others can simply refuse connections and hence operate as
a walled garden.  This is built into David's concept of deployment options,
and it's so easy! :-)

Non-communicating walled gardens are supported just as much as
interoperating worlds.

With regard to examples showing how services map to user concepts, yes
indeed, we will need to do that!  And now that VWs may interoperate, we can.
:-)


Morgaine.





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

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> morgaine.
>
> some of us on this list are interested in deploying only a subset of
> services, so it is FAR from being settled. when you say "we already
> agree" i feel you're dismissing my concerns.
>
> i respectfully disagree that we cannot construct use cases useful to
> virtual world deployers without high level abstractions like virtual
> worlds, teleports, avatars and clothing.
>
> but i do agree that if you are wanting to define interop BETWEEN
> virtual worlds, then yes, you do.
>
> what about the idea of creating a hypothetical example of a virtual
> world that includes these high level abstractions (users, avatars,
> teleports, clothing, etc.) but then goes on to define them in terms of
> services that do not need these high level abstractions to work.
>
> so for example, we could have the "high level" virtual world
> abstraction define data formats for prims, collections of prims,
> references to textures, sounds, animations, etc. but at the service
> level we simply call them "assets." that way i could put an asset
> meta-data server in front of the wikimedia common's web server and
> have it serve "assets" in a way that is independent of a virtual
> world. if asset access is independent of a virtual world, you could
> actually have an asset served directly from the asset service to an
> offline editing tool or a web page that simply used WebGL to render
> the asset.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Morgaine
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Barry, I too think that we are arguing something that we already agree
> on.
> > Joshua was undoubtedly right in his latest post, because after all we've
> > spent hundreds of emails discussing interop between virtual worlds in
> very
> > explicit terms, so it's close to impossible that this hasn't been our
> common
> > goal.  It must be an issue of terminology or emphasis.
> >
> > I like the services approach to interop a lot, as it provides a high
> degree
> > of decoupling and very natural client-server architectures with which we
> > have huge experience in building and scaling.
> >
> > However, our VW use cases are not expressed in terms of services, but in
> > terms of user-level concepts like virtual worlds, teleports, avatars, and
> > clothing.  Somehow we are going to have to examine our services-oriented
> > definitions and protocols in terms of the VW-oriented use cases to
> determine
> > whether we are on the right track and fulfilling our requirements.  This
> > requires us to accept that interop between VWs must be discussable, at
> least
> > when examining use cases.
> >
> > I'm happy to accept that the bulk of our work will be in terms of
> services,
> > as long as the general goal of providing interop between virtual worlds
> is
> > clearly highlighted in the introduction.  Without that, readers will
> simply
> > have no idea what we're trying to achieve.  Besides that, we will have to
> > continue discussing how services relate to VWs (as we have been for many
> > months), because that provides us with our user-level requirements.
> >
> > Beyond that, I think we can stick to the services view entirely.
> >
> >
> > Morgaine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ===========================================
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Barry Leiba
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Putting a finer point on what Joshua said:
> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > The group's goals are formally described in the charter:
> >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/charter/
> >> > ... which, based on previous iterations of this discussion, we
> carefully
> >> > crafted to not try and nail down what a "virtual world" was so as not
> to
> >> > offend those who have an investment in any particular reading of that
> >> > term.
> >>
> >> Indeed, and I think we are largely arguing about something we agree
> >> on, and, as Meadhbh and others have said, are stuck on the language.
> >> If we can get to the point where we *do* agree that the issue is just
> >> (or mostly) language, we can work on sorting out the language, and get
> >> un-stuck.
> >>
> >> As I understand the charter and the discussion leading up to it, we're
> >> arguing about what we *mean* by "virtual world".  Some want "multiple
> >> virtual worlds" to interoperate using vwrap; others are *defining* a
> >> single virtual world as the set of *regions* that interoperate using
> >> vwrap.
> >>
> >> I suggest that these are saying the same thing, that (in this regard,
> >> at least) we have the same goal, and that these two definitions
> >> largely collapse into one.
> >>
> >> Am I wrong, here?
> >>
> >> Barry, as chair
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> vwrap mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vwrap mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
>