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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

yup. i think we're definitely winding ourselves around the terminology axel.

kk. sounds like you're using the "web" terminology analogy. HTTP(S) is
the protocol used by browsers to create "the web." so you're saying
VWRAP should be the protocol suite that creates "the virtual world"?

but if i understand morgaine's issue correctly, she wants to force a
definition of "the virtual world." this would, it seems to me, to be
the equivalent of forcing HTTP(S) to include a definition of "the
web."

i'm fine with enumerating some use cases, and then building a model to
describe the different use cases, then building a protocol that fits
the model. that way we leave it up to individual deployers as to how
they wish to use the protocol.

so we have second life, opensim (classic), hypergrid and the tourist
model as use cases. we build a model that can represent protocol flows
for trust and service establishment in these use cases, and then we
build a protocol that specifies the format and semantics of these
protocol flows.

then software peeps implement these flows. i myself am interested in
implementing a more "middleware" approach, where policy decisions are
implemented as callouts or config files. once we have compatible
software, we can build deployments where people actually go out and
build virtual worlds.

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



On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:51 AM, 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
>
>