Interoperability; was: [sldev] Call for requirements: ISO MPEG-V ...

[Ben Francis]

Mike Monkowski wrote:
> I cringe every time I hear 3D virtual worlds discussed as "The 3D Web." 

The 3D Web is one method of delivering 3D scenes over a network and is a 
term used by the Web3D Consortium who define standards to do just that.  
I do not intend to use the terms "3D Web" and "Virtual Worlds" 
interchangeably. The 3D web is just one approach which in combination 
with other Internet standards (for authentication, instant messaging, 
currency etc.) can be used to create virtual worlds. That's what my 
disclaimer was for.

> The 2D web is primarily static, one directional, and lonely.  

I would not describe the web applications I use every day with any of 
those words.

> Yes, there are chat rooms, MySpace, and blogs--the Web 2.0 stuff--

Web 2.0 = Web 1.0
> but when you're talking about "3D representations of online stores, 
> advertising in virtual spaces... in short the same business models 
> that surround the web" you're not talking about communication and 
> collaboration, you're still talking about marketing.

My point really was that the business models are in the applications, 
not the platform. Perhaps the examples I gave weren't very imaginative, 
but that's because I think we're discussing architectures, not business 
plans here.
>
> If you call it Web 3.0, then I might give you the benefit of the 
> doubt, but if you're still talking about "The 3D Web," I don't think 
> you understand virtual worlds.  
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned web 3.0 is as much of a 
ridiculous term as web 2.0. The web is the web, it is continuously 
evolving and I believe is only currently in its early stages. The kind 
of things people refer to as "Web 2.0" are simply realizing the 
read/write nature originally intended by Sir Tim Berners-Lee (see his 
book, Weaving the Web).

The term 3D Web describes quite precisely what it is I'm talking about. 
XML served over HTTP (or alternative asynchronous protocols) which 
represents web resources as 3D graphics.

> "The Web" is about providing.  Virtual worlds are about collaborating.

I would argue that the web is an information space and virtual worlds 
are one way of representing that information. Collaboration can happen 
in many ways.

If you want to call the new web standards that the W3C is currently 
working on "Web 3.0" then fair enough. But they are certainly more than 
just delivering static text in one direction, they are about device 
independent, distributed applications with a focus on collaboration and 
multimodal user interfaces to semantically rich data - The 3D Web is 
part of the web of the future.


Anyway, in defending my semantics I have strayed off the original point.

The point is that assets should be able to move between virtual worlds 
and this should be built in as standard from the start, not using a 
never ending list of import/export scripts in the future.

MMORPGs are one use (for entertainment) of virtual worlds which may 
require certain stylistic restrictions on content, but this does not 
mean that other applications (perhaps the majority) would not want to be 
able to freely move assets between 3D scenes.

Apologies for being long winded!

Regards

Ben

-- 
Ben Francis
http://tola.me.uk