Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Morgaine <morgaine.dinova at googlemail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) <infinity at lindenlab.com> wrote:

> also. just a show of hands. who's planning on implementing the tourist model?


Almost everybody who will operate virtual worlds, I assume --- that could be hundreds of thousands of world operators, if not millions, mostly small.  We certainly can't foretell!  And we can't get them to raise a show of hands either. :-)

I doubt that it will be common to operate walled gardens once everyone else is allowing their users to travel freely among the huge diversity of the metaverse.  It certainly seems like a recipe for failure to deny tourism to one's residents as a matter of policy, given that tourism is so popular in the physical world today.

However, this is a policy issue of course, and therefore not something that VWRAP will dictate.  We merely provide the mechanisms to allow tourism when desired, not mandate or deny it to any given world operator.


Morgaine.




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

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) <infinity at lindenlab.com> wrote:

also. just a show of hands. who's planning on implementing the tourist model?

--
  infinity linden (aka meadhbh hamrick)  *  it's pronounced "maeve"
        http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Infinity_Linden



On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 00:34, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca at gmail.com> wrote:

> The "tourist use case" has been brought up several times, but the concept is
> not always used in the same way, and needs to be more precisely defined.
> Morgaines original definition of the "Free Worlds Tourist use case" in
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01392.html
> mentions two characteristics:
> 1. Travel requires no prior arrangement.
> 2. Your avatar is defined by you, not by the target worlds, and it appears
> in those worlds with no prior arrangement.
> Point 1 is only dependent the policies of the users AD as well as that of
> the destination region. It is not dependent on the protocol, so in principle
> solved.
> The second point is actually extending the SL use case beyond what is in my
> view needed for a basic tourist model (and that is why the post was in the
> mmox list).  In my view  a basic tourist use case has two main
> characteristics:
> 1.  Travel requires no prior arrangement.
>         2.  Agent domains can use external asset services
> Point 2 requires that assets services expose an interface (in the current
> ogp description of the AD that is not the case).
> Note that this models does *not* assumes that all assets in a services
> should be useable by the agent in all domains, but only that an interface is
> available so an asset service in one domain can be contacted by another AD.
> I think exposing the asset service interface directly is essential for
> meaningful interop.  I think it would benefit the discussion if some
> diagrams were added to http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Structural_Design
> and/or to the VWRAP wiki to document this possibility.
> -Vaughn

> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>
_______________________________________________
ogpx mailing list
ogpx at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx