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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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