Subject: [mmox] Content metadata through interoperability

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:09:18 -0800

[email-masked] wrote:
> You're assuming that Linden Lab simply won't let pass through its gates an object that is not marked for transfer. But Linden Lab's entire world has been reverse-engineered in 

You seem to be having a beef with Linden Labs. It seems like you don't 
trust Linden Labs to actually enforce any policy that would be specified 
in an interoperability standard. Surely there are more appropriate 
forums for you to discuss these Second Life specific things with Linden 
Labs people.

I think a rule of thumb for /this particular list/ should be that if the 
issue discussed is not applicable at least to eight different technology 
vendors (for example: Multiverse, Kaneva, Areae, Forterra, Linden Labs, 
Qwaq, Second Life and OpenSim), then it doesn't belong on this list.

>> In fact, I am arguing that we should enable exactly what you're 
>>     
> describing! I don't understand how you belive I'm not.
>
> I think it's very simple: you have to clarify whether you are for putting copy/mod/transfer permissions on objects or not.
>   

I believe I have clearly stated that it is my position that all content 
should contain metadata, and one piece of that metadata is 
copy/reuse/cache/storage rights. The specific forms of those 
copy/reuse/cache/storage may be c/m/t, or more likely something a little 
richer to cater for situations like copylefted content that has "sticky" 
semantics.

Sincerely,

jw

---

From: Ann Otoole <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:22:54 -0800 (PST)

The first order of business should be to set up a metadata repository that commences with at least two top level topics of Legal and Technical. Under Legal would come the interests pertaining to intellectual property. The child elements can have pointers intermixed while the metadata is fully fleshed out under it's main elements. The technical implementation aspects of the various elements is a ways down the road as I see it. 

________________________________
From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:09:18 PM
Subject: [mmox] Content metadata through interoperability

> You're assuming that Linden Lab simply won't let pass through its gates an object that is not marked for transfer. But Linden Lab's entire world has been reverse-engineered in 

You seem to be having a beef with Linden Labs. It seems like you don't trust Linden Labs to actually enforce any policy that would be specified in an interoperability standard. Surely there are more appropriate forums for you to discuss these Second Life specific things with Linden Labs people.

I think a rule of thumb for /this particular list/ should be that if the issue discussed is not applicable at least to eight different technology vendors (for example: Multiverse, Kaneva, Areae, Forterra, Linden Labs, Qwaq, Second Life and OpenSim), then it doesn't belong on this list.

> I think it's very simple: you have to clarify whether you are for putting copy/mod/transfer permissions on objects or not.

I believe I have clearly stated that it is my position that all content should contain metadata, and one piece of that metadata is copy/reuse/cache/storage rights. The specific forms of those copy/reuse/cache/storage may be c/m/t, or more likely something a little richer to cater for situations like copylefted content that has "sticky" semantics.

Sincerely,

jw

_______________________________________________
mmox mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox

---

From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:38:33 -0800

ann. this is not the forum for discussions of intellectual property in  
general. this is a forum for discussing issues related to technical  
interoperability.

that being said... i agree that such a metadata repository and related  
discussion would be useful... only that the mmox mailing list is NOT  
the place for such a discussion.

perhaps you could set up something like that in another location? IETF  
process requires people participating in IETF mailing lists and  
meetings disclose their intellectual property interests, so collecting  
that information shouldn't be difficult. and i can see where the  
discussion would be interesting and useful.

i just want to make sure we do not derail the standards development  
process with inter-nicene flame wars.

-sincerely
-meadhbh hamrick (aka infinity linden)

On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Ann Otoole wrote:

> The first order of business should be to set up a metadata  
> repository that commences with at least two top level topics of  
> Legal and Technical. Under Legal would come the interests pertaining  
> to intellectual property. The child elements can have pointers  
> intermixed while the metadata is fully fleshed out under it's main  
> elements. The technical implementation aspects of the various  
> elements is a ways down the road as I see it.
>
> To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]" <[email-masked] 
> >
> > You're assuming that Linden Lab simply won't let pass through its  
> gates an object that is not marked for transfer. But Linden Lab's  
> entire world has been reverse-engineered in
>
> You seem to be having a beef with Linden Labs. It seems like you  
> don't trust Linden Labs to actually enforce any policy that would be  
> specified in an interoperability standard. Surely there are more  
> appropriate forums for you to discuss these Second Life specific  
> things with Linden Labs people.
>
> I think a rule of thumb for /this particular list/ should be that if  
> the issue discussed is not applicable at least to eight different  
> technology vendors (for example: Multiverse, Kaneva, Areae,  
> Forterra, Linden Labs, Qwaq, Second Life and OpenSim), then it  
> doesn't belong on this list.
>
>
> > I think it's very simple: you have to clarify whether you are for  
> putting copy/mod/transfer permissions on objects or not.
> >
>
> I believe I have clearly stated that it is my position that all  
> content should contain metadata, and one piece of that metadata is  
> copy/reuse/cache/storage rights. The specific forms of those copy/ 
> reuse/cache/storage may be c/m/t, or more likely something a little  
> richer to cater for situations like copylefted content that has  
> "sticky" semantics.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>

---

From: Ann Otoole <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:10:25 -0800 (PST)

So there appears to be agreement that intellectual property metadata, however that looks when published by whomever publishes it, shall be part of the interoperability standard and such filtering of content data shall be part of the common sub routines to ensure content not flagged for transport shall not be transported. Just a generic submissive stance to a superceding authority seems adequate should such an authority ever appear. Then the content creators and lawyers can go have their discussions and form the rules which MMOX will then have to accomodate as a technical implementation (which seems rather trivial once there is a metadata standard). Is that the general reason for excluding intellectual property rights from a interoperability standard?

Anyway I am more interested in how some people feel the avatar identity can somehow be represented in multiple spaces at the same time without having to transmit said mesh/texture and environment appearance data. That is a very interesting suggestion. Is it that what one sees is not what another sees and avatars are just generic default visual representaions except on the individual participant's screen where they see what they want to see? I.e.; that impressive Orc or whatever shows up in Jon's meeting room as a standard faceless guy in a black business suit as do all meeting participants. (And no copyrighted data has been transferred btw) Might save a lot of bytes, the available supply of which are becoming limited by US broadband service providers. There will have to be trade offs to accomodate byte transfer capping I guess.

Or is some sort of homogenous data hub between worlds the way to go? I have built ETL systems to interrogate all sorts of databases on different technologies simultaneously and translate all the data into a common format for a single fact repository so I see it as entirely feasible to have a hub of sorts (deployed at each "world) to make it possible for data to be shared among worlds with very few limitations other than the overhead of conversion/translation and the unavoidable overhead of bytes transferred.

________________________________
From: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <[email-masked]>
To: Ann Otoole <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:38:33 PM
Subject: Re: [mmox] Content metadata through interoperability

ann. this is not the forum for discussions of intellectual property in general. this is a forum for discussing issues related to technical interoperability.

that being said... i agree that such a metadata repository and related discussion would be useful... only that the mmox mailing list is NOT the place for such a discussion.

perhaps you could set up something like that in another location? IETF process requires people participating in IETF mailing lists and meetings disclose their intellectual property interests, so collecting that information shouldn't be difficult. and i can see where the discussion would be interesting and useful.

i just want to make sure we do not derail the standards development process with inter-nicene flame wars.

-sincerely

---

From: Kajikawa Jeremy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:11:19 +0900

I would agree about the multiple-presence by permissive authorizations
across
 servers and the appearance of an AV being different per-grid.

the only "same-same" appearance options would have to be when the
account can
  have set an "export permitted" *minimal* AV dataset for baking with
anything marked
  grid-exclusive being denied to that sort of "minimal AV"...

so someone going to an R18 grid doesnt "take" the materials that are R18
restricted
  onto a grid region setup for "Teenagers" because I see that someone
*will* try that,
  just to get away with it ...

just to clarify... I have accounts on "MSN"/"ICQ"/"Y!M"/"Gtalk"(jabber)
and "AIM"...
  and have replicated the base information to ALL of the accounts with
few differences.

I see the multiple grid issue along the same lines,  restrict to
"Identity"&"presence",
  with the AV and immediate "clothing" being the appearance for
presence.

and it would always be quicker to have an AV that suites the environment
on the grid.

If someone makes a "Clan of the Cave bear" environment and someone walks
in
 from playing on an UT2003 or UT2009 server and keeps the AV...
  it would be too anacronistic to explain away if they are part of the
"tribe" in each.

Having the option of a "default" AV per-grid would also be using
"extended" Identity,
  by having a "presence" module for each server(group?) have a
UserAccount entry
  for every AV present (even a temporary "extern" entry) and allow a
more seamless
  experience at the user-end as well.  

as for the Intellectual Property rights exclusion,  are they truly being
excluded?

since "IP materials" such as a piece of SL "clothing" for an AV if
appropriate for
  an alternate system *may* become transportable where a mechanism is
made
  or becomes available.

Personally I am wondering about some kind of "object tracking"
mechanism,
  I tried to discuss using a "BitTorrent" style tracker for providing a
distribution
  mechanism where a "content creator" can provide an initial "seed"
object
  and have each "service" "track" it using Asset/Inventory support.

This would require a caching mechanism and allow any servers that need
the object
  simply using the index metadata and obtaining it quickly with
validation included.

this would be useful as a distribution and content tracking mechanism
using
 the existing UUID as "label" for the tracker... however without the
metadata and key
 the trackered item would be effectively useless.

to purchase a license you would obtain the metadata and key from the
content maker.

I personally think metadata such as that would need to have a "local
storage" option
 and any kind of local storage would need to include being keyed.

Ive sketched up a few things on paper and Im slowly working through
putting them
  into a more cohesive sketch for submission and review and here would
be
  a decent place since Im trying to make everything as simple as
possible.

okay...thats it for the braindump...

Comments please! :)

 Jeremy

On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 15:10 -0800, Ann Otoole wrote:
> So there appears to be agreement that intellectual property metadata,
> however that looks when published by whomever publishes it, shall be
> part of the interoperability standard and such filtering of content
> data shall be part of the common sub routines to ensure content not
> flagged for transport shall not be transported. Just a generic
> submissive stance to a superceding authority seems adequate should
> such an authority ever appear. Then the content creators and lawyers
> can go have their discussions and form the rules which MMOX will then
> have to accomodate as a technical implementation (which seems rather
> trivial once there is a metadata standard). Is that the general reason
> for excluding intellectual property rights from a interoperability
> standard? 
> 
> Anyway I am more interested in how some people feel the avatar
> identity can somehow be represented in multiple spaces at the same
> time without having to transmit said mesh/texture and environment
> appearance data. That is a very interesting suggestion. Is it that
> what one sees is not what another sees and avatars are just generic
> default visual representaions except on the individual participant's
> screen where they see what they want to see? I.e.; that impressive Orc
> or whatever shows up in Jon's meeting room as a standard faceless guy
> in a black business suit as do all meeting participants. (And no
> copyrighted data has been transferred btw) Might save a lot of bytes,
> the available supply of which are becoming limited by US broadband
> service providers. There will have to be trade offs to accomodate byte
> transfer capping I guess.
> 
> Or is some sort of homogenous data hub between worlds the way to go? I
> have built ETL systems to interrogate all sorts of databases on
> different technologies simultaneously and translate all the data into
> a common format for a single fact repository so I see it as entirely
> feasible to have a hub of sorts (deployed at each "world) to make it
> possible for data to be shared among worlds with very few limitations
> other than the overhead of conversion/translation and the unavoidable
> overhead of bytes transferred.
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________

---

From: Gareth Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:18:53 +0000

I made a post about this under the "If I make make a few assumptions"
thread. Let's put it quite clearly, it's fine to add metadata to the
standards, and include any of your DRM flags within that metadata, but
putting DRM itself as part of the standard is no good.

A bigger question should be, "should we standardise the flags within
the metadata?" for those worlds that do want to implement DRM
measures. This list isn't the place to express our views on DRM, but
it is the right place to ask about what formats we should use for
metadata fields.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Ann Otoole <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The first order of business should be to set up a metadata repository that
> commences with at least two top level topics of Legal and Technical. Under
> Legal would come the interests pertaining to intellectual property. The
> child elements can have pointers intermixed while the metadata is fully
> fleshed out under it's main elements. The technical implementation aspects
> of the various elements is a ways down the road as I see it.
>
>> You're assuming that Linden Lab simply won't let pass through its gates an
>> object that is not marked for transfer. But Linden Lab's entire world has
>> been reverse-engineered in
>
> You seem to be having a beef with Linden Labs. It seems like you don't trust
> Linden Labs to actually enforce any policy that would be specified in an
> interoperability standard. Surely there are more appropriate forums for you
> to discuss these Second Life specific things with Linden Labs people.
>
>> I think it's very simple: you have to clarify whether you are for putting
>> copy/mod/transfer permissions on objects or not.
>>
>

---

From: Gareth Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:23:59 +0000

To clarify, do we want the SL-style "copy/modify/transfer" only, or do
we want a more general framework and how would that more general
framework work?
SL-like perms of course have their flaws, so we can't assume them to
be universal. One approach i've seen to this (thanks Adam) is a
domain-specific language to describe permissions:
http://www.adamfrisby.com/blog/2008/08/hypothetical-permissions/

I know for myself, the current permissions in SL are inadequate, since
I can't release something with "no no modify, no no copy, no no
transfer" (i.e basic GPL) permissions and people far too easily slap
no copy and no modify on top of stuff.

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:25:23 -0800

>  servers and the appearance of an AV being different per-grid.

If you can't keep your appearance when you go to another place, then 
what good is it? I might as well just register a new avatar for the new 
place. One of the whole points of interoperability is the 
transportability of my identity (visual, kinetic, and otherwise).

Is the concern here that some world may develop avatar meshes that they 
do wish for their own paying customers to be able to see on their client 
machines, but they do not wish friends of the paying customers, using 
other client machines, to be able to see those meshes? In that case, 
couldn't those world operators simply provide the generic meshes when 
asked for the interoperable mesh and texture set for a given user?

>   it would be too anacronistic to explain away if they are part of the

If some world wants to enforce a dress code, I think they can, but by 
default, I don't think it should be designed into or required by the 
standard. Compare real life: you can put on your biker gear, not wash 
for a week, and then walk into an investment bank. You will feel pretty 
out of place, just like the UT2003 guy in the Cave Bear environment. 
Whether the investment bankers actually throw you out, probably depends 
more on what you're doing in their office, than what your clothing is.

Sincerely,

jw

---

From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:46:59 -0800

jon. i agree that being able to keep your identity (including your  
appearance and any scripted objects you might have following you  
around) is a very cool idea. at linden lab, we think it's very  
important to enable this in the future. but we can't enforce this view  
on other VW operators. just 'cause we have the ability to export  
avatar meshes that look like an amoeba with a bad head cold doesn't  
mean blizzard wants such a thing showing up on their grid.

so again... mechanism, not policy. we can define how two different  
administrative domains might communicate about your avatar appearance,  
while at the same time NOT requiring the target domain to honor the  
information.

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Jon Watte wrote:

> what good is it? I might as well just register a new avatar for the  
> new place. One of the whole points of interoperability is the  
> Is the concern here that some world may develop avatar meshes that  
> they do wish for their own paying customers to be able to see on  
> their client machines, but they do not wish friends of the paying  
> customers, using other client machines, to be able to see those  
> meshes? In that case, couldn't those world operators simply provide  
> the generic meshes when asked for the interoperable mesh and texture  
> set for a given user?
>
> If some world wants to enforce a dress code, I think they can, but  
> by default, I don't think it should be designed into or required by  
> the standard. Compare real life: you can put on your biker gear, not  
> wash for a week, and then walk into an investment bank. You will  
> feel pretty out of place, just like the UT2003 guy in the Cave Bear  
> environment. Whether the investment bankers actually throw you out,  
> probably depends more on what you're doing in their office, than  
> what your clothing is.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:59:30 +0000

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> just 'cause we have the ability to export avatar meshes that look like an
> amoeba with a bad head cold doesn't mean blizzard wants such a thing showing
> up on their grid.
>
> so again... mechanism, not policy.

That is a very clear statement (and a funny illustration) of where I have
always believed that virtual worlds interop was heading.

While there will undoubtedly be huge interest in maintaining an avatar's
properties such as appearance and visible name while hopping from world to
world (because people take much pride in their visible attributes), this
cannot be imposed upon a world operator for a variety of reasons, including
technical, artistic and many others.

As Infinity states, our interest should be merely in *allowing* such
continuity, not in requiring it.  We define the mechanisms of interop, but
not the policies.

Morgaine.

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:30:20 -0800

> while at the same time NOT requiring the target domain to honor the 

Absolutely!

My point is that the mechanism should be defined -- we shouldn't leave 
it undefined, just because some particular vendor may choose to not 
follow or use it.

Sincerely,

jw