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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

the issue is not whether we "understand" the concept of a virtual
world, but whether it has meaning to people writing software. i know
you don't understand this since you're not a software developer, but
ultimately someone has to write code. and that code will make certain
assumptions about it's execution environment and which network peers
it trusts.


Do we really have to have condescending replies of this kind on the list?

The person concerned knows very well that I'm a software developer of very
long experience, and is doing this for effect.  Please leave personal
references off this forum.  We have more than enough technical issues to
deal with here, and we don't need this at all.


Morgaine.





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

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Morgaine
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Joshua, you're right, this subject has been recycled more times than we
> can
> > remember.  What's more, EXACTLY as you wrote back in October 2009, on
> each
> > occasion we arrived at the same conclusion, namely that no matter in
> which
> > terms we describe our protocol, it will provide what ordinary users of
> VWs
> > recognize as interop between their worlds.
>
> um. what's this "we" we're talking about?
>
> > In other words, if we have two virtual worlds such as OSgrid and 3rd Rock
> > Grid, then if those worlds wish it, they could use VWRAP to enable an
> agent
> > to teleport from one to the other and to retain avatar properties and
> assets
> > after the TP, as one commonly sought example.  The user perspective on
> this
> > is extremely simple, and all-important.  It cannot be ignored just
> because
> > some document writers profess not to understand the term "virtual world".
> > (Everyone else does.)
>
> the issue is not whether we "understand" the concept of a virtual
> world, but whether it has meaning to people writing software. i know
> you don't understand this since you're not a software developer, but
> ultimately someone has to write code. and that code will make certain
> assumptions about it's execution environment and which network peers
> it trusts.
>
> the assumption in this group was originally that we would have "domain
> decomposition." we later changed that to "service decomposition." this
> allows software developers to build software for "services" which
> deployers can configure into "virtual experiences."
>
> > The above kind of interop is either possible with VWRAP or it is not.
> The
> > phrase "no interop BETWEEN virtual worlds" denies the possibility point
> > blank, and while it's nice to try to smooth it over as an artifact of
> > terminology, we are faced with diametric opposites here.
>
> no. the phrase "no interop BETWEEN virtual worlds" means two things:
>
> a. we are not doing interop between two distinct virtual worlds that
> use different protocols (the WoW vs. SL example.)
> b. the protocol does not REQUIRE a participant to implement a complete
> virtual world. a participant in the protocol may decide to implement
> only a single service.
>
> it has always meant this, despite the fact it's not what  you're interested
> in.
>
> > While I agree with you entirely that there is (near unanimous) consensus
> > that we are doing interop between virtual worlds (even if using different
> > language), the drafts do not reflect that, and as Crista detailed, barely
> > have any relevance to OpenSimulator-based worlds at all.
>
> repeat after me: VWRAP is not HyperGrid. VWRAP is not OpenSim. VWRAP
> is not Linden Lab. VWRAP is not Second Life.
>
> > As many people have said, we need to fix the language of the drafts so
> that
> > it reflects our interop goals clearly, because it fails to do that at the
> > moment.
>
> i have requested on several occasions that you provide a list of
> issues you have with ANY of the drafts.
>
> when you provide comments of the form: "the document says <this> and i
> would prefer it says <that> because ..." then you will find that your
> comments are addressed.
>