Re: [vwrap] what's wrong with starting small?

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the link, Crista!  John's email mentions:


   - Identity/Authentication
   - Assets (possibly Inventory, maybe)
   - Teleport (both login and simulation to simulation)


Let's talk about *Assets*. :-)

Beyond a small amount of discussion and agreement with Joshua last year on
basic requirements that would enable inter-world tourist use cases, there
has been virtually nothing discussed in VWRAP about this core topic without
which everything else is singularly uninteresting.

About a year ago, I spoke to John about the need for replacing the singleton
inventory/asset service in Cable Beach with a more flexible one to allow
inter-VW tourism, and John said that his singleton was just a temporary
feature in his prototype and would be improved.  Has there been any progress
on that in the offspring of CB, ie. SimianGrid?

Staying with "State of the Union" topics, if we're merging VWRAP and
OpenSimulator efforts, would you like to give us a description of asset
handing in the new HG1.5 and where you expect HG2.0 to be heading?  Asset
handling on interop is exactly the kind of topic that we need to have
examined in depth before we can write initial drafts that have a chance of
being relevant. :-)


Morgaine.





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

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Cristina Videira Lopes
<[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00318.html
> If you are talking about *this* email from John, we are on the same page.
>
>
> Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
>
>> so we have a recommendation from at least two implementers (myself and
>> john) that we focus on a small subset of an overall virtual world
>> problem domain.
>>
>> it seems to me that diva/christina and morgaine are pushing for a more
>> expansive problem domain.
>>
>> can i ask, what is the issue we have with starting small and then
>> growing the problem domain?
>>
>> i think i remember an IETF "old hand" (it might have even been barry)
>> say that it's a LOT easier to go back to the IAB / IESG and ask to add
>> things to your charter than it is to remove them.
>>
>> i'm also thinking that some of the tension in this group is over the
>> conflicting objectives between the "expansionist" block and the
>> "dimunitivist" block. but it also seems that we're not horribly far
>> off from each other in terms of wire protocol.
>>
>> maybe a solution could be to draft two documents... one a "long term"
>> goal for virtual worlds that describes the "expansionist" objectives
>> and another that is a little more short term and describes the
>> "diminutivist" objective for a small subset of things needed for the
>> long term goals?
>>
>> is the concern with this approach that any near term service (service
>> establishment, event queue, teleport, assets) would need to know about
>> the totality of the virtual world in order to be practical?
>>
>> -cheers
>> -meadhbh
>> --
>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>