Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Meadhbh Hamrick <meadhbh.siobhan at gmail.com>]

but didn't we say that we were going to focus on "second life-like"
worlds in this WG? isn't that why it was formed? shouldn't the tourist
model be an effort of the MMOX group? i thought that was the reason we
kept the MMOX mailing list up, so work could continue on that type of
virtual world.

-meadhbh/infinity


On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Morgaine
<morgaine.dinova at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Vaughn,
>
> You've correctly represented my MMOX post, thanks!  (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01392.html )
>
> I must stress, as you did yourself, that the "Free Worlds Tourist" use case
> which I described there in MMOX is different  to the simpler "tourist use
> case" which we have been discussing here.  It's great that you're shining
> some light into this corner.  Hopefully this will allow us to affix labels
> to the various cases to keep our discussions simple yet clear.
>
> Before addressing your actual point, I should first state that I consider it
> unfortunate that the "Free Worlds Tourist" use case is not considered an
> integral part of VWRAP requirements --- this is a practical conclusion on my
> part.  On the basis of our discussions so far, I think it would be too much
> to expect that a mode of operation offering such a high degree of freedom of
> travel and of avatar appearance would achieve rough consensus in the group,
> given that its considerable distance from Second Life policies would almost
> certainly lead to intense opposition.  This is not a battle I wish to fight.
>
> As a practical matter then, "Free Worlds Tourist" as defined above is not a
> use case that I am pushing in VWRAP at this time, despite it being entirely
> compatible with the SL/Opensim model and hence deserving inclusion.  I'm
> simply going to express regret that it is likely to be a bridge too far on
> political grounds and leave it at that.  I would wish it were otherwise.
>
> With that disclaimer, I'll answer your point about our more constrained
> "tourist use case" (which perhaps needs a better name), this being a much
> easier target but still a very useful one.  I will however answer it in the
> immediately following post, because I don't want to get this confused with
> the "Free Worlds Tourist" case that I described in MMOX.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> =====================================
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:34 AM, 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
>
>