Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca at gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net> wrote:

Vaughn Deluca wrote:

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net <mailto:lenglish5 at cox.net>> wrote:

   Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:

       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
       

   It seems to me that the MOST touristy mode we will ever see is the
   free-for-all from the original OGP test where
   simple TP and naught else was supported.


I find that a deeply depressing thought.  I would *really* hope that at least  transfer of free to copy assets will also be possible.

Well, me too. I was merely pointing out that "tourism" was built into the system from the start, so to suggest that tourism was MMOX
rather than VRAM was a false dichotomy. We already have an example of the "most touristy" mode possible and things will be built
*on top of* it. The idea that few vendors would support it misses the fact that it is the _de facto_ model that everything else is built on.

Now, tourism with non-SL-compatible worlds is certainly an MMOX issue, but tourism is inherent in ANY interop scenario, period.

It's just the state of NULL trust. Whether NULL trust is allowed is a policy issue, but its inherent in the nature of the system.


Lawson

Mmmm, yes, "tourist" was badly chosen. But somehow i got the impression we were heading towards a system were assets would only be available from the Asset server of the world  currently visited, so you would need to either duplicate assets to different servers to have access, or just live with the fact that in each visited world you have a different set of assets, like what we have now when going to OSGrid.  Seems I was a bit too pessimistic.

Anyhow, i realised i need read some more to make a meaningful contribution here. Also without the new versions of the draft up its hard to discuss anything. So I will take a pause and study  the backgound documents in some  more dept. 

-Vaughn