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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Boroondas Gupte <[e-mail]
> wrote:Let me get this straight. If we

>
>    - 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)?
>


Boroondas, there has never been any requirement that a party provide a
complete set of services.  Any party can provide as many or as few types as
services as they want, so that has never been an issue.

The interoperability that we're talking about here is the one that every
ordinary user of multiple worlds understands perfectly well when they
discover to their dismay that each world is an isolated walled garden, and
wish it were otherwise.  The introduction of "service level
interoperability" into the discussion is just an attempt to avoid that most
important requirement.

We either have interoperability between worlds, in which an inhabitant can
travel from one world to another and take their avatar and/or possessions
with them, or else we don't have that.  It's black and white, and no amount
of fudging about "service level interoperability" is going to overcome the
lack of VW interoperability as a user would understand it.

This is *NOT* a matter of terminology, as some are trying to portray.  On
the one hand we gain interoperability between worlds, and on the other hand
we don't.


Morgaine.





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


On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Boroondas Gupte <[e-mail]
> wrote:

>  On 03/29/2011 02:00 AM, Morgaine wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Boroondas Gupte <
> [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
>