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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

morgaine.

some of us on this list are interested in deploying only a subset of
services, so it is FAR from being settled. when you say "we already
agree" i feel you're dismissing my concerns.

i respectfully disagree that we cannot construct use cases useful to
virtual world deployers without high level abstractions like virtual
worlds, teleports, avatars and clothing.

but i do agree that if you are wanting to define interop BETWEEN
virtual worlds, then yes, you do.

what about the idea of creating a hypothetical example of a virtual
world that includes these high level abstractions (users, avatars,
teleports, clothing, etc.) but then goes on to define them in terms of
services that do not need these high level abstractions to work.

so for example, we could have the "high level" virtual world
abstraction define data formats for prims, collections of prims,
references to textures, sounds, animations, etc. but at the service
level we simply call them "assets." that way i could put an asset
meta-data server in front of the wikimedia common's web server and
have it serve "assets" in a way that is independent of a virtual
world. if asset access is independent of a virtual world, you could
actually have an asset served directly from the asset service to an
offline editing tool or a web page that simply used WebGL to render
the asset.

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



On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Morgaine
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Barry, I too think that we are arguing something that we already agree on.
> Joshua was undoubtedly right in his latest post, because after all we've
> spent hundreds of emails discussing interop between virtual worlds in very
> explicit terms, so it's close to impossible that this hasn't been our common
> goal.  It must be an issue of terminology or emphasis.
>
> I like the services approach to interop a lot, as it provides a high degree
> of decoupling and very natural client-server architectures with which we
> have huge experience in building and scaling.
>
> However, our VW use cases are not expressed in terms of services, but in
> terms of user-level concepts like virtual worlds, teleports, avatars, and
> clothing.  Somehow we are going to have to examine our services-oriented
> definitions and protocols in terms of the VW-oriented use cases to determine
> whether we are on the right track and fulfilling our requirements.  This
> requires us to accept that interop between VWs must be discussable, at least
> when examining use cases.
>
> I'm happy to accept that the bulk of our work will be in terms of services,
> as long as the general goal of providing interop between virtual worlds is
> clearly highlighted in the introduction.  Without that, readers will simply
> have no idea what we're trying to achieve.  Besides that, we will have to
> continue discussing how services relate to VWs (as we have been for many
> months), because that provides us with our user-level requirements.
>
> Beyond that, I think we can stick to the services view entirely.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===========================================
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:08 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>