Subject: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

From: Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:29:41 -0700

it seems to me we're in the enviable position of having several good
name suggestions: ARAP, VWIP, OVER, ABOVE and VWGP. We also have the
historical name OGP.

would it make sense to go around asking people to rank their name
preferences and do Single Transferrable Vote (STV) to find the first,
second and third most popular choices?

-cheers
-meadhbh

---

From: Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:56:41 +0200

> name suggestions: ARAP, VWIP, OVER, ABOVE and VWGP. We also have the

VWRAP, pronounced as V-wrap.

(Virtual World Region/Agent Protocol)

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:22:56 +0100

As a general rule, I would recommend *against* using common words such as
ABOVE or OVER for the name of the group or protocol, for several reasons:

   - Not everyone will capitalize ABOVE or OVER when using them in this
   technical context, so ambiguities will arise in common usage outside of this
   group.
   - Discussions about the protocol *held in voice* will incur vocal
   ambiguity with the corresponding English words, and of course capitalization
   is not possible in this medium.
   - Sometimes the words "above" or "over" in their normal English meaning
   will get CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS, adding yet more confusion to the mix.
   - New names like SMTP or HTTP extend natural language easily through
   popular use, but overloaded terms create conflict rather than smooth
   language extension.
   - ABOVE or OVER may be cute constructions, but cuteness doesn't help
   anyone.
   - But the biggest reason for avoiding common words is given by Google,
   since the resulting poor quality of search results will benefit neither the
   workgroup nor the eventual readers of our specifications.

I have no particular preferences for the name, apart from the above advice.
However, here are some partial phrases that might generate some more ideas:

   - Virtual Spaces Organization and Access -- avoids "Virtual Worlds"
   - Region Interoperation Services -- it's what the protocol targets
   strongly
   - Virtual Services Interoperation -- alludes to Zha's reformulation
   - Virtual World Services Protocol -- works well despite "ATM syndrome"
   - Virtual World State Representation System -- alludes to REST

As others have recommended as well, topological terms like "grid" don't
really help and may create confusion, so should be discouraged.  In
contrast, it would be worth encouraging use of a name that references some
unique element of this particular proposal, such as Regions, or maybe State
Transfer.

Morgaine.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>wrote:

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

---

From: Bill Windwalker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:47:17 -0700 (PDT)

If it was me i keep the OGP it has come a long way and sounds like a GOV. word ;-)
any way i started saying some days Oh good programing ;-)
or even how great at times

________________________________
From: Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 2:29:41 PM
Subject: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

-cheers
-meadhbh

---

From: Joshua Bell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:26:35 -0700

It seems like we're close on draft charter text; the recent discussion has
generated some good additions and clarifications to the text. We still need
a name, though.

Given a lack of consensus on any of the proposals for a protocol name, I
suggest we reduce the problem to just a group name, and defer any protocol
naming for now.

* The working group name is for "casual" use; i.e. it will never be
published in an RFC
* The working group should have a limited lifetime, and dissolve; so
something "eternal" or "ideal" is actually a bad idea
* It should be clear how to pronounce and spell, so that it can be
communicated in voice
* It should be recognizable when seen on an IETF agenda

I agree with Morgaine's points earlier on this thread about names, but feel
they primarily apply to protocol names, except for the excellent suggestion
that this be something relatively unique in Google searches. That is
somewhat in (healthy) conflict with the above points, though.

Going back to Infinity's suggestion of listing top choices, here are mine
from the floated proposals. I don't really have a #3. Again, I'm focusing on
proposed working group names only, so in context these would be

1. Agent Based Open Virtual Environments Working Group - ABOVE ("above")
2. Virtual World Region/Agent Protocol Working Group - VWRAP ("v-wrap")

If you believe that the latest rev of the draft charter text is acceptable
as a basis for forming a working group (and remember, a group can
re-charter!), please reply with your top picks.

---

From: Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:37:57 -0700

hmm.. i fear that if we don't define a protocol name, people will
simply call it "the ABOVE protocol," so we'll get a de facto name.

and, there are several places in the existing drafts that use the term
OGP, replacing that string with "this protocol" or "the protocol
defined by ABOVE" would get kind of old.

but yeah, i think what i'm saying is while we can separate the
protocol name from the group name and we might be able to get away
with not mentioning the protocol name in the charter, we'll need a
protocol name pretty quick so we can use it in the IDs.

-cheers
-meadhbh

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:16:09 +0100

> 2. Virtual World Region/Agent Protocol Working Group - VWRAP ("v-wrap")

I support the *Region/Agent* part of #2 because it refers to  the central
idea in this proposal that makes it distinct from other interop protocols.
In particular, it distinguishes this work from other proposals that would be
in the scope of MMOX.

In contrast, the *Virtual World* part of #2 just adds fuel to the problems
that have been highlighted here about the redefinition of this phrase in OGP
compared to its use by everyone else in this sphere.  That issue isn't going
away, and will become ever harder as we begin to focus on use cases for
cross-world interop.

Building upon *Region/Agent*, various other possible constructs for the
group name come to mind.  Note that the "world[s]" issue can be avoided
while retaining *Virtual*:

   - Region/Agent Domain Interop Group -- RADIG
   - Virtual Region/Agent Interop Group -- VRAIG
   - Virtual Region/Agent eXchange group -- VRAX group
   - Virtual Region/Agent Interop X -- VRAIX, X = {proto, group, apps}
   - Virtual Region/Agent Domain group -- VRAD group
   - Virtual Domains Interop Protocol/Group -- VDIP/VDIG
   - and so on ("Virtual Domains" actually reflects the central idea well)

Note that simply dropping "World" from your #2 achieves the same thing and
makes it more pronounceable:

   - Virtual Region/Agent Protocol / Working Group - VRAP ("vrap")

As you pointed out, the group name is not as crucial as the eventual
protocol name, but as Infinity mentioned, the group name suggests a de facto
protocol name so we can't leave the latter dangling for too long.  I suspect
that a protocol name that differs from the group name will just sow
confusion, and doesn't add value.

It may be best to go through this ordeal just once.

Morgaine.

=======================

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:16:58 -0700

> protocol name pretty quick so we can use it in the IDs.

If the working group were going to deal with a number of independent (but 
related) specifications, each of which would have their own name, then giving 
the working group yet-a-different name would make sense.  And no, it's not the 
end of the world one way or the other, but it IS less confusing to have the wg 
name and the primary specification name match.

The comment about a name that is too common a word, like ABOVE, is well-taken.

I think vwrap is reasonable.

(It also permits flights of analogy and other whimsy.  Not essential, of course, 
but can add some entertainment to a community effort...)

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:21:44 -0700

but above is just so cool!

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Dave CROCKER<[email-masked]> wrote:
> related) specifications, each of which would have their own name, then
> giving the working group yet-a-different name would make sense.  And no,
> it's not the end of the world one way or the other, but it IS less confusing
> to have the wg name and the primary specification name match.
>
> (It also permits flights of analogy and other whimsy.  Not essential, of
> course, but can add some entertainment to a community effort...)
>
> d/
> --
>
>  Dave Crocker

---

From: Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:23:39 -0700

but seriously, seems like we're getting close.

VWRAP seems reasonable, even though it suffers from the ATM Machine problem.

---

From: Joshua Bell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:48:33 -0700

> away, and will become ever harder as we begin to focus on use cases for

That's a healthy concern, but I think we need to bite the bullet and risk
the dreaded "Virtual World" phrase in the name. It is *so* evocative to
anyone inside and outside the space and leaves little ambiguity about the
problem domain. No, it isn't specific enough, hence the qualifiers.

MMOX suffered from being far too broad a name (MMO = WoW to most of the
planet). VW is still broad, but I think we can handle it. After all, while
we're focused on the subset of VWs that share Region/Agent concepts, the
protocols may appeal to others. (And it's not limited to the domain, of
course; I was trying to evangelize LLSD in Stockholm.)

Dropping "World" leaves phrases that only make sense to people in the know.
I would expect "Virtual Region" or more so "Virtual Domain" to invite
queries from far afield within the IETF ("Virtual domain? is that like DDNS
kicked up a notch?")

So... like others, I guess I'm putting my voice behind "VWRAP" - kudos to
Carlo for the suggestion.

Can list participants agree to VWRAP as "not perfect, but good enough" and
move past the name issue to real interop work?

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:56:30 -0700

Joshua Bell wrote:
  > That's a healthy concern, but I think we need to bite the bullet and
> risk the dreaded "Virtual World" phrase in the name. It is *so* 
> evocative to anyone inside and outside the space and leaves little 
> ambiguity about the problem domain. No, it isn't specific enough, hence 
> the qualifiers.

I've been meaning to comment on this.  As someone outside the space, I do find 
the term helpful as the common label for the space.  No one is going to think 
this is about cloud computing, file transfer, or voice calls...

And while it might be nice to have that term extend into a precise technical 
construct, I'm not sure it's essential.  So, the current work becomes an 
/example/ of virtual world work, but has its own vocabulary.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:56:11 +0100

> move past the name issue to real interop work?

I vote +1 for this to move us ahead.

The group name doesn't matter too much, and even if a de facto name sticks,
it's still got the *Region/Agent* part to it which is very appropriate and
distinguishes it from other protocols.

Morgaine.

---

From: "Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:19:10 +0000

+1 to move the discussion forward.  I don't love it but its fine as a working name.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Morgaine
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 12:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Joshua Bell <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Can list participants agree to VWRAP as "not perfect, but good enough" and move past the name issue to real interop work?

The group name doesn't matter too much, and even if a de facto name sticks, it's still got the Region/Agent part to it which is very appropriate and distinguishes it from other protocols.

Morgaine.

---

From: Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:59:58 -0700

also, i just did a google search for VWRAP and got a whole lot of "not
much." ergo, we're not competing with another common name with lots of
search results. so from that perspective, i'm starting to get happy
about the VWRAP name, even though i thought ABOVE was cooler. i think
morgaine's comments about NOT picking a common name are definitely
spot on in this regard.

-cheers
-meadhbh / infinity

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dickson, Mike (ISS
Software)<[email-masked]> wrote:
> +1 to move the discussion forward.  I don’t love it but its fine as a
> working name.
>
>
>
> it's still got the Region/Agent part to it which is very appropriate and

---

From: Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:07:58 +0200

> but above is just so cool!

I totally agree with the argument that it's bad if you
can't search for it with Google.

-- 
Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>

---

From: Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:14:23 +0200

> VWRAP seems reasonable, even though it suffers from the ATM Machine problem.

Depends, I'd just say 'ATM' and leave out 'Machine' anyway.

I never say HTTP Protocol either, I just say HTTP, SMTP etc.

Random conversation: "What protocol shall we use?", "Lets use VWRAP."
No problem.

You might argue that the WG should have a different name though.
If the protocol is VWRAP, or VRAP, then the working group name could be
"VRAX Working Group" ?

I guess I hereby propose: VRAX WG

---

From: Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:21:25 +0200

> morgaine's comments about NOT picking a common name are definitely

Ok, since everyone else that commented so far seems to be
happy, ignore my VRAX WG proposal ;).

I'm obviously happy with "VWRAP working group".

The argument to leave in 'World' in order to make it a lot
more clear what the WG/protocol is NOT about is a good one too.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:53:58 -0400

Sticking my oar in as co-chair of the BOF -- which gives me no extra
influence, but affords some minor "moderator" status for the time
being:

Good: it sounds like VWRAP is, um... a wrap.

As I read things, it should stand for Virtual World Region/Agent
Protocols (note the final "s"), giving the name the flexibility to
cover multiple related protocols (one of which could certainly be
called "VWRAP" as well, and would, in that case, have no "s".

I think that from an IETF point of view, having "virtual world" in the
name is critical.  I don't think it makes anyone think that it covers
all aspects of virtual worlds, nor does it cut off anyone else who
wants some other virtual world work started.

It seems to me that we have reasonable consensus on the name... and
that we're just about ready with the charter.

Excitement reigns.

Barry Leiba, OGPX BOF chair

---

From: Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:00:45 +0200

> called "VWRAP" as well, and would, in that case, have no "s".

Virtual Worlds Region/Agent Protocol(s)

no opinion yet on the s behind Protocol, but there should be
an 's' behind Worlds.

This is already done correctly in the draft.

---

From: Kari Lippert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:04:44 -0400

> Virtual Worlds Region/Agent Protocol(s)

+1

---

From: Meadhbh Siobhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:54:25 -0700

what version of the draft are you looking at? the most recent version
uses "protocol" almost exclusively (using "protocols" only in one spot
near the initialism OGPX.)

i'm not saying this to argue for or against the use of "protocol" over
"protocols," only to point out that we might be looking at different
revisions of the draft charter.

---

From: Meadhbh Siobhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:54:56 -0700

i +1 kari's +1.

---

From: Meadhbh Siobhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:54:41 -0700

thank goodness it was me misunderstanding this.

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Barry Leiba<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Carlo meant that the draft charter correctly has an "s" in "worlds"
> (not in "protocols").
>
> Barry
>

---

From: Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:43:57 +0200

I meant Worlds is already done correctly