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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Responding to two posts:

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]> wrote:

> If you want service only, I think there is code implemented already.



Exactly as Dzonatas says.  We don't need to work on protocols for internal
use by separate, isolated world services.  We have those already.  The
ingredient that is mostly missing from the Virtual World arena is
interoperability *between* such services, and that is the goal that has
sparked extremely wide interest.


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.



Morgaine.





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


On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]> wrote:

> If you want service only, I think there is code implemented already. We
> need the ability for people to own their assets on their own local site (and
> further simulate them with their own local simulator, for like opening
> inventory in looking at the puzzle pieces).
>
> There has been much debate about client/server and exactly what that means.
> Given that even X11 defines client/server backwords from the VWinterop
> concept now, it is a hard battle to people's mind to bend one way or another
> in terminology. I think the progress to define multi-point on either client
> or service side was finally a start to see the bigger picture easier. Being
> able to start up separate client side programs is at issue that breaks away
> from the monolithic design.
>
> There are some that want to stay with the monolithic design purely for
> revenue reasons. I need not mention whom. This causes the main bottleneck
> from the client-side developer. If we define server side in such way, and
> let server-side people "ban" client-side developers because it doesn't fit
> their motif, then there is no equality in vote in this working group. I hope
> we can remedy at least this in any "interoperation".
>
> I think it would be easiest to consider the DAE (collada) format as an
> example. Allow one client to start up (point A), and allow another client to
> start up (point B), and allows these to clients to contant an agent domain
> to transfer DAE files back and forth between inventory without any region
> simulators. This A<->B path needs to be in the "service level
> interoperability". This may seem like simple file transfer, so be it.
>
>
> Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
>
>> in other words, what does "interoperation between virtual worlds" mean?
>>
>> the "service level interoperability" was sufficiently defined such
>> that i could (and did) go out and write code to demonstrably implement
>> the specification. does the term "interoperation between virtual
>> worlds" mean:
>>
>> a. interoperability between any two existing virtual world or MMO
>> systems? (i.e. - between second life and world of warcraft?)
>>
>> b. interoperability between second life, second life / enterprise or
>> OpenSIm instances?
>>
>> or
>>
>> c. interoperability between two OpenSim instances?
>>
>> if a or b, do we have any interest from any of the implementers of
>> those systems to adhere to an IETF standard?
>>
>> -cheers
>> -meadhbh
>>
>> --
>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Morgaine
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The group's expectation of direction was already manifest at the time of
>>> Crista's intervention a few months ago, at which time it was unanimous
>>> that
>>> everybody except one person was seeking interoperation between virtual
>>> worlds as a primary requirement and as a key motivation for the group's
>>> work.
>>>
>>> The dissenting opinion was clearly, if unofficially, outvoted by <count
>>> of
>>> group members> to 1.� If that direction is STILL not accepted by everyone
>>> in
>>> the WG, I shall ask Barry to formally call a count of votes and establish
>>> the rough consensus officially.� Without this we will be perpetually
>>> disrupted by a non-representative minority pulling in the opposite
>>> direction
>>> to the rest of the group.
>>>
>>>
>>> Morgaine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ========================
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Um. Morgaine. You don't get to define the wg's expectation or direction.
>>>> As a member of this wg (and someone who's actually written code related
>>>> to
>>>> it's problem domain) I would like to be included in the development of
>>>> this
>>>> group's consensus.
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 28, 2011 8:29 AM, "Morgaine" <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Barry, is there IETF precedent for a WG that has undergone this
>>>> particular
>>>> train of events, namely a major disconnect between its originators'
>>>> intentions and the WG's expectations of direction?
>>>>
>>>> If so, our situation may be slightly easier to handle, since the
>>>> originators have withdrawn from pressing their case and there appears to
>>>> be
>>>> almost no actual dispute remaining in the group.� Procedurally though, I
>>>> really don't know where we stand from the IETF's perspective.� We seem
>>>> to
>>>> have a common goal now, but if the IETF demands paperwork, we're not
>>>> there
>>>> yet because the designs and plans have not been worked out.� I'm hoping
>>>> for
>>>> flexibility, but acknowledge that flexibility has a limit.
>>>>
>>>> That said, reading the IETF Mission Statement leaves no doubt that VW
>>>> interoperability is right in the middle of the road for the IETF.� Can
>>>> the
>>>> group be left to work out what needs to be worked out?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Morgaine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =================================
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Carlo, Vaugh...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vwrap mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
> Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>
>