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

[Boroondas Gupte <[e-mail]>]

On 03/29/2011 02:00 AM, Morgaine wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Boroondas Gupte
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[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.

On 03/29/2011 02:25 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
> i think that's the same thing as "service level interop" with the
> added requirement that participants implement all services.

Let me get this straight. If we

    * take this "interoperability between VW systems" (as propagated by
      Morgaine),
    * assume these systems are composed from separable services and
    * drop the requirement that each service provider (I'd like to avoid
      the term "participant" here, as that could also refer to end users
      or their user-agents) provides a complete set of services (i.e. a
      "whole" virtual world, that could function on its own), but
      instead allow them to offer single services that only form a
      virtual world when combined with other services from other
      compliant providers

we end up with "service level interoperability" (as propagated by Meadhbh)?

(Please speak up if I'm misreading any of you.)

If that is actually the case, most of the differences within the group
might be merely in nomenclature. Or maybe the difference isn't mainly in
the entities we want to interoperate, but instead in what we mean by
interoperation? Or have we ended up at a formulation abstract enough
that people can agree with it even when they actually have different
goals from each other?

Slightly confused,
Boroondas