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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

another quick point..

are we defining interoperability between virtual worlds or between
hosts that implement services that simulate virtual worlds?

my point is that if we are defining interop between virtual worlds,
this does not imply that deploying a single defined service is an
acceptable use case for consideration by this group. but the converse,
that defining a set of services that can simulate a world, allows us
to consider the use case of a service provider delivering a single
service.

in other words, i had thought that we were defining services with
which we could define virtual experiences and not a virtual world
protocol that is comprised of services.

if we are defining a virtual world protocol, we have to enumerate
explicit combinations of services which are suitable for deploying
independently.

if we define services that can be used to simulate a virtual world,
then the services stand on their own. this was, i thought, our plan.
(i mean, after we decided we didn't want to deploy bundles of services
as domains.)

the bit that's frustrating for me is, i am MUCH more interested in
defining interfaces and interfaces that allow us to bridge existing
data sources on the net with virtual worlds than i am about building
complete virtual worlds. at this point, i'm MUCH more interested in
building a Wikipedia User Server <-> VWRAP auth service bridge than i
am to developing a complete new implementation of a virtual world.

so.. to recap.. if we say we're defining services for simulating a
virtual world, as long as we define the right collection of services,
you get a virtual world for free. but if we define a virtual world
interp protocol, there's no guarantee that the interfaces defined by
the protocol will be able to be devolvable into individual service
interfaces.

-cheers
-meadhbh
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Barry Leiba
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>