Subject: [mmox] Global Object Identification

From: Tommi Laukkanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:18:47 +0300

Dear All

Anyone have suggestion how we can achieve indisputable universal
identification of objects. It would be a good start for
interoperation.

Respectfully,
Tommi of bubblecloud.org

---

From: Mike Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:19:10 -0500

How about the CNRI handle system?

http://www.handle.net/

On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 07:18 +0000, Tommi Laukkanen wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox

---

From: Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:08:42 -0700

Historically, systems like Second Life and OpenSim have used UUIDs to
identify objects. As a number of us started thinking about
interoperability, the idea of the "naked UUID" (i.e. - a UUID that
exists without context) would pose a problem. I think there's general
agreement that moving to a system where you use URIs to identify
objects is "a good idea." The idea being that if you have a URL,
you'll always know where to go to get meta-information about the
object (if not the digital representation of the object itself.)

I think there's been discussion about "rebooting" the digital asset
sub-system to make it a better fit for a distributed virtual world
(and more scalable) to include the use of URIs to address objects,
what classes of objects should be defined in the specification, and
how one extends the list of defined object classes. In previous drafts
of the charter, there was an objective for this listed as "OGP Virtual
World Primitive Object Format." A title like "Digital Asset Addressing
and Definition" might be a better title.

But the take-away is, there's been some thought about this. John
Hurliman has been working on a full-on asset service. OpenSim and
Second Life  (and probably realXtend and others) would benefit from a
well defined asset service that uses URIs for references, perhaps
using the existing asset classes defined by SL/OpenSim and maybe
realXtend.

-cheers
-meadhbh

---

From: Mike Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:26:41 -0500

I mentioned it in a separate message, but have you had a look at the
NCRI handle service for this. It really seems spot on.  There is the
need to address how digital assets map into it and what metadata is
useful to carry around but the handle service was designed specifically
to handle the secure resolution of URI's to "providers".

Mike

---

From: Imaze Rhiano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:35:17 +0300

Hi!

Sorry about noobish question, but what is wrong with GUID?

---

From: Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:03:42 -0700

nothing's wrong with GUIDs if you have one asset service. that way
when you get a GUID/UUID for an asset, you go to that one asset
service and say "okay.. gimme the (meta)data for this asset." it's a
little more difficult if you have more than one asset service cause
the UUID itself doesn't tell you what service to go to in order to
find an asset's (meta)data.

in order to find asset (meta)data from a GUID, you either have to have
a global registry where you can do UUID to asset service mapping or
you ship around the UUID and the location of the asset service. The
latter is essentially what we're talking about in OGP where asset caps
will probably look something like
http://example.com/assets/EBBD86E3-A274-4CD1-A86A-405AABCB7BF9 , where
"http://example.com/assets/" is the location of the service and
"EBBD86E3-A274-4CD1-A86A-405AABCB7BF9" is the UUID of the asset.

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:31:34 -0700

> to handle the secure resolution of URI's to "providers".

While there aren't many system/paradigm choices, here, there's more than one.

So it will probably help to have a brief summary of what the functional
requirements and constraints are, and then a mapping to the candidates.

(Saying URI, for example, doesn't really answer many technical questions,
although it typically means the top of the scoping hierarchy is defined by a
domain name.)

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Mike Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:29:15 -0500

I was simply addressing a question about existing technologies for
resolving digital assets with one I was aware of.  I think the handle
system is well suited to the problem but I completely agree, having some
requirements down will help inform that decision.  

URI implies to me resources on the web (as opposed to local only where a
simple UUID might be sufficient).  But yes, again the details are what
matters and having some guidance vis requirements is really needed.

Mike

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:56:20 -0700

I would assume that in an interoperable world, there is no "local
only" object ID. Or, more likely, if an internal ID is needed, it's up
to each host to manage these, and translate when talking to the
outside world.

Also, I'd think that mapping URI to "resource on the internet" is
right -- VWs are internet constructs, by and large.

Sincerely,

Jw

-- 

--
Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living
standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world.
Nevertheless, whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon
have lower consumption rates, because our present rates are
unsustainable.