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

[Mike Dickson <[e-mail]>]

  On 09/19/2010 10:41 PM, Morgaine wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> secondly, VWRAP is not now, nor has it ever been a protocol to enable
> interoperability BETWEEN virtual worlds.
> ...
> in short, the consensus of this group has generally been to describe
> the mechanisms one could use to build a single virtual world but does
> not dictate that this world be a singleton.
>
>
> This does not reflect any consensus expressed in this group whatsoever.
I suspect we're getting wrapped around the axle on terminology and what 
"single virtual world" means.  At least I'd like to interpret it that 
way as it then matches the discussion over the past months.  Put another 
way we're not specifying a mechanism for interconnection between very 
different technologies (or more appropriately approaches to virtual 
worlds).  It's a single virtual world because it shares a single set of 
assumptions about how the services that make it up work together to 
provide services.  If I change in a significant way a service that 
doesn't match what VWRAP documents then I'm not able to participate in 
the VWRAP virtual world any longer.

The comment about a singleton is on target I think with this 
interpretation.  I can create a walled garden that doesn't interconnect 
with other "services".  It's using VWRAP and so a part of the VWRAP 
"Virtual World".

If thats not a correct interpretation then yes we have a huge issue.  If 
it is correct then perhaps we need to refine how we define terms since 
its caused alot of confusion.

Mike