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

[Jonathan Freedman <[e-mail]>]

Hello Meadhbh ,

I apologize once again for the continued confusion on this particular subset
of the overall standardization discussion. So we are clear - the Open
Metaverse Foundation is without a doubt interested in the creation,
implementation and adoption of a virtual world interoperability protocol
suite. Overall products aside, this seems like most rational means of moving
the idea (let alone implementations) of relatively freeform virtual worlds
forward.

Given recent iterations of HyperGrid, it seemed prudent to begin
implementation as a preliminary means of experimenting with interoperability
between virtual worlds of approximately the same class. As the VWRAP
protocol suite matures, we will adopt it as appropriate.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions about where the Open Metaverse
Foundation stands with regards to VWRAP / HyperGrid.

Regards,

Jonathan Freedman

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> jonathan,
>
> can i just ask why you're interested in VWRAP?
>
> OMF has publicly stated it is dropping support for VWARP in favor of
> HyperGrid. (unless you want to publicly state OMF is interested in
> implementing protocols defined by this group.)
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Freedman
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I believe the key is to have (in completely unambiguous language) a
> listing
> > of features that would be supported by the greater VWRAP standard. A
> > definitive listing of features, rather than use cases, seems like a more
> > rational way to proceed. This can likely be distilled from the existing
> > drafts. Also, as Meadhbh points out, it is important to not tie the
> standard
> > to any existing protocol suite. As the VWRAP standard evolves, groups
> will
> > be able to adopt it. Interoperability between VWRAP and "Second Life"
> style
> > virtual worlds (or WoW or Eve Online or Minecraft) is outside the scope
> of
> > this process. Which isn't to say it would not be awesome ;)
> > Also, if we are careful, we do not exclude any type of client. The
> various
> > transport and application level protocols needed by VWRAP are accessible
> > from phat clients and web clients alike. There should be no need to
> describe
> > the ideal end clients as we would already have a listing of supported
> > feature sets.
> > Cheers,
> > Jonathan
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Morgaine <
> [e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> That sounds reasonable to me, Jonathan.  I believe that your first
> >> sentence reflects everyone's understanding of our goals ever since we
> formed
> >> the working group.  Only now has this odd "no interop between virtual
> >> worlds" slant been placed on our goals.
> >>
> >> Judging by the responses received here, it's clear that everyone else is
> >> affirming in one way or another their interest in virtual worlds that
> >> interoperate.  I certainly am.  I hope that we can confirm it as a
> matter of
> >> record with the help of the WG Chairs.
> >>
> >>
> >> Morgaine.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ===============================
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Freedman <
> [e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello everyone,
> >>> 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. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the
> >>> introduction document should drop all references to use cases, focus on
> >>> describing the context (sandbox virtual worlds) and then be merged with
> the
> >>> foundation document.
> >>> I have approached editing the Intro document several times and it
> always
> >>> ended in despair. I believe the only rational way to move forward is to
> >>> integrate it into the Foundation document as a simple overview of the
> >>> context and proceed from there. If others support this direction, I
> would
> >>> be honoured to proceed with the first cut of such a merge.
> >>> I do want to state that interoperability between the *same class* of
> >>> virtual worlds seems like the proper end goal. The language needs to be
> >>> unambiguous and there is no point in distracting the consumer (of the
> ID)
> >>>  with discussions of use cases. Use cases, deployment strategies and
> the
> >>> like should be left up to interpretation. The formal documentation
> needs to
> >>> focus on the protocol rather than implementation.
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Jonathan Freedman
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Morgaine
> >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Mike Dickson <[e-mail]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Put another way we're not specifying a mechanism for interconnection
> >>>> between very different technologies (or more appropriately approaches
> to
> >>>> virtual worlds).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately, no Mike, it's much worse than that.  Even if the
> >>>> technologies of the worlds in question are not only compatible but
> >>>> IDENTICAL, Meadhbh claims that we are not creating a protocol for
> interop
> >>>> BETWEEN those worlds.  At all, whatsoever.
> >>>>
> >>>> This cannot be allowed to stand, otherwise the entire purpose of VWRAP
> >>>> as an interop protocol disappears, and instead VWRAP becomes a
> protocol for
> >>>> building standalone, isolated worlds.  That is not what we're here
> for, and
> >>>> it has never been --- we have affirmed the goal of interoperation
> between
> >>>> VWs time and again on this list, repeatedly.
> >>>>
> >>>> This issue needs to be cleared up without ambiguity.  We can't have a
> >>>> prolific draft writer writing drafts that do not reflect the goals
> voiced by
> >>>> almost everyone in this group since OGPX/VWRAP began.  Crista's post
> is
> >>>> merely the latest expression of concern of many.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a clear disconnect here between the goal of
> non-interoperating
> >>>> worlds, and the much more useful goal of VW interoperation that
> virtually
> >>>> everyone else has been discussing and desiring.  We already have
> >>>> non-interoperating worlds, lots of them!  Note that even Joshua
> mentions
> >>>> interoperation of VWs in his latest post a few weeks ago, in which he
> >>>> welcomed discussion of "protocols for data transport between virtual
> world
> >>>> instances" --
> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00253.html .
> >>>>
> >>>> This needs resolving formally, otherwise our progress on resolving the
> >>>> issues of VW interop is completely blocked.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Morgaine.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ================================
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Mike Dickson <[e-mail]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 09/19/2010 10:41 PM, Morgaine wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick <
> [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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> vwrap mailing list
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> vwrap mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jonathan Freedman
> >>> President
> >>> Open Metaverse Foundation
> >>> [phone]
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> vwrap mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Freedman
> > President
> > Open Metaverse Foundation
> > [phone]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vwrap mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
>



-- 
Jonathan Freedman
President
Open Metaverse Foundation
[phone]