Subject: [mmox] Fwd: Suggestions for AppArea meeting

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:19:36 -0800

FYI -- some education of the IETF community seems in order!  I went  
through a process not unlike Zoltans and still have a long way to go.

Lisa

Begin forwarded message:

> From: <[email-masked]>
> Date: February 20, 2009 12:21:34 AM PST
> To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: Suggestions for AppArea meeting
>
> Hi Lisa,
> I am new to virtual worlds, therefore I was wondering about this  
> myself.
>
> My initial guesses were:
> - Chat. But chat does not make sense - why would a Star Wars guy  
> talk with a guy from Warcraft? They are immersed in their own  
> virtual worlds; what can these two individuals possibly have in  
> common; why would they care about the other? Unless of course they  
> know each other from the real world - in which case they have dozens  
> of existing tools they can use to talk with each other.
> - Moving between virtual worlds (the player could leave things  
> behind and walk through a teleport or something that takes him to  
> another world). But then again, what would a level 12 orc warrior  
> become in the Star Wars world? Would the old character be discarded?  
> Where would "his story" begin in the new virtual world? Usually it  
> starts with a "birth" - which he obviously already had.
> - Trading property. Actually, trading would make sense but the  
> property should not be transferable between the virtual worlds  
> (otherwise the first warrior with a Star Destroyer would rule the  
> virtual world in Warcraft until a decent wizard brings over a  
> lightsaber and an X-Wing - ruining the virtual world for everyone).  
> So, if the property was to stay in the virtual world, why would a  
> Warcraft player buy a Millenium Falcon in the other virtual world?
>
> Then, I decided to give up speculation - thinking I am surely off  
> the track.
>
> I would prefer having a general introduction during the Apps Opening  
> as well - a few use cases should put me on the right track.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards: Zoltán Ördögh
> E-mail: zoltan dot ordogh at nokia dot com
> Phone: +358 50 386 0566
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked] 
> ] On Behalf Of ext Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: 19 February, 2009 19:15
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Chris Newman
> Subject: Suggestions for AppArea meeting
>
>
> Any suggestions for using the AppArea time on Monday morning?
>
> So far, I would like to have MMOX people explain in very general  
> terms the opportunities for interoperability between virtual  
> worlds.  Neal Stephenson's Metaverse, here we come!
>
> LIsa
>
> --- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall --- Messaging  
> Architects sponsors The Spamhaus Project.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---
Messaging Architects sponsors The Spamhaus Project.

---

From: Charles Krinke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:57:41 -0800 (PST)

Dear Zoltan:

Well, one can certainly imagine use cases where interop does not matter and I suspect games are one of those for the most part.

Most of what we are working on is not a game, however, so we are interested in trade more analagous to trade between independent countries. 

Where one VW or "grid" might wish to trade in vehicles, buildings, furniture perhaps to setup educational sims, corporate meeting places, simulations of operating room etiquete, for instance.

Or, we find that meetings may be appropriate in one sim on one grid for a common presence. For instance, on OSGrid, we have weekly meetings for the C# software developers and we have a C# class that meets.

There are avatars that HyperGrid interop now from other grids running OpenSim to both of those meetings and they tend to be very useful.

Charles Krinke

________________________________
From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 11:19:36 AM
Subject: [mmox] Fwd: Suggestions for AppArea meeting

FYI -- some education of the IETF community seems in order!  I went through a process not unlike Zoltans and still have a long way to go.

Lisa

Begin forwarded message:

Hi Lisa,
I am new to virtual worlds, therefore I was wondering about this myself.

My initial guesses were:
- Chat. But chat does not make sense - why would a Star Wars guy talk with a guy from Warcraft? They are immersed in their own virtual worlds; what can these two individuals possibly have in common; why would they care about the other? Unless of course they know each other from the real world - in which case they have dozens of existing tools they can use to talk with each other.
- Moving between virtual worlds (the player could leave things behind and walk through a teleport or something that takes him to another world). But then again, what would a level 12 orc warrior become in the Star Wars world? Would the old character be discarded? Where would "his story" begin in the new virtual world? Usually it starts with a "birth" - which he obviously already had.
- Trading property. Actually, trading would make sense but the property should not be transferable between the virtual worlds (otherwise the first warrior with a Star Destroyer would rule the virtual world in Warcraft until a decent wizard brings over a lightsaber and an X-Wing - ruining the virtual world for everyone). So, if the property was to stay in the virtual world, why would a Warcraft player buy a Millenium Falcon in the other virtual world?

Then, I decided to give up speculation - thinking I am surely off the track.

I would prefer having a general introduction during the Apps Opening as well - a few use cases should put me on the right track.

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Lisa Dusseault
Sent: 19 February, 2009 19:15
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Chris Newman
Subject: Suggestions for AppArea meeting

So far, I would like to have MMOX people explain in very general terms the opportunities for interoperability between virtual worlds.  Neal Stephenson's Metaverse, here we come!

LIsa

--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall --- Messaging Architects sponsors The Spamhaus Project.

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:15:12 -0800

>> as well - a few use cases should put me on the right track.

For a concrete use case, check out:

http://www.interopworld.com/members/node/22

Here's the important part, with some pre- and post-amble stripped:

As a use case, to work through some of the areas needing attention, I 
use the following scenario, which is not far from what we're doing 
today, although without the benefit of interoperability standards:

    * Company A operates chemical plants. They also use virtual world
      platform Q for training and simulation.
    * City B uses virtual world platform S for city planning and
      emergency management. One of the plants of Company A is located in
      City B.
    * City B wants to run an emergency preparedness scenario involving a
      large fire at the chemical plant.
    * Company A has a nice, detailed simulation/model of the chemical
      plant in their virtual world.
    * City B has a virtual view of the city in their virtual world, but
      no specifics regarding the chemical plant.
    * Employees of Company A log into platform S to participate in the
      scenario, as usual (no big IT deployment needed).
    * Employees of City B log into platform Q to participate in the
      scenario, as usual (no big IT deployment needed).
    * Company A employees see city firetrucks pull up to the plant on
      the streets outside, and enter the plant.
    * City B employees (including emergency responders) can enter the
      chemical plant, and see the results of the high resolution
      simulation (which may simulate things like chemical fires and
      plume dispersal).

To achieve this scenario, a system that interconnects the two back-ends 
of Company A and City B would have to deal with agreeing on the duration 
and "virtual area" of the exercise, agree on the content (terrain) used 
within the area, and agree on what entities take part of the simulation 
and how they interact. That's still a big mouthful, but it's something 
that has been done successfully in the military space for 20 years using 
the DIS protocol (*1).

While DIS has served the military well, it is not quite suitable for an 
enterprise or consumer class virtual world interoperability protocol for 
two reasons. First, it hard-codes a lot of military knowledge into the 
protocol, while leaving a lot of things interesting to civilians out of 
the equation. Second, it is based on a peer-to-peer, trusted-network 
model with sizeable PDUs being broadcast between participating peers. 
However, taking the benefits of DIS, such as a well-defined wire 
protocol, a reasonable terrain/entity/interaction division, and the good 
results being had with an "entity telemetry" approach, should be 
seriously considered when defining a new protocol for virtual world 
interoperability.

With that in mind, the areas that may need to be addressed by a back-end 
system integration include:

   1. Physical connectivity between the instances of platform S and
      platform Q. May be as simple as a TCP tunnel using a firewall
      hole, or as complex as a PKI VPN or SSL solution.
   2. Agreement on playbox (area of simulation) and duration of the
      scenario, to avoid a connection to linger longer than necessary,
      and to avoid problems like City B employees teleporting to other
      chemical plant areas in different cities of the virtual world of
      Company A.
   3. Agreement on the terrain (ground and buildings) of the scenario,
      so everyone sees the same thing, and nobody "runs through a wall."
   4. Agreement on high-level information about entities in the
      simulation ("people" vs "vehicles" vs "trees").
   5. Agreement on voice and text communications between the simulations.
   6. Agreement on finer detail information about entities -- what do
      they look like; how do they animate.
   7. Agreement on user interface for cross-simulation entities; for
      example how to present a simulated 2D plant status panel to a city
      worker.
   8. Agreement on interaction between entities, for example:
         1. what happens when a firetruck collides with a Company employee.
         2. what happens when water is poured on a chemical fire.
         3. what happens when a City employee pushes the "intercom"
            button at the gate of the plant.
   9. Agreement on the exchange of instrumented data from the
      simulation, to help in run-time management and post-scenario
      analysis and review.

This is certainly a large nut to crack, and probably can't be done in a 
single big effort. However, I believe there are pieces from this list 
that can be knocked down relatively easily, and provide good value to 
existing customers -- which means that implementation doesn't need to be 
on speculation, but can be driven by real needs, and real money, which 
is always a benefit when making sure that standards serve the needs of 
stakeholders.