RE: [xml-dev] Re: Approaches to Expanding the Semantics of a Community's

[Len Bullard <len.bullard@uai.com>]

While most of us are familiar with the most common means to achieve
interoperable semantics (up-translation, down-translation, common
vocabulary), we may not be studying causes of resistance or adoption of
interoperable semantics.   As usual, here are examples for the web3D
community.  I find graphics are the acid test of XML design assumptions.

O  Means exist.  No market imperative.  For example, there is much talk of
interoperable avatars for online worlds.  Game makers are highly resistant
to this (and to XML in general).  They thrive in a to-the-metal market.
They also have the shortest life-cycle. 

O Means exist.  Culture resists it.  For example, in virtual worlds there
still exists the pseudo-early-adopter attitude that 'our world is good
BECAUSE it is exclusive'.  This is similar to the vendor excuse that
complexity is a barrier to competition.  It isn't true but it helps amplify
early sign up numbers.   They may have a long lifecycle (see Cybertown) but
interoperability is a tool-to-product issue, not a product-to-product issue.

O Means exist.  The market drivers are fuzzy.  One sees this in emergent
markets where the FUD is thick and well-funded.   Virtual worlds as social
networks have a business model similar to a nightclub or casino-economy.  It
is better for the owner if the customer comes and stays.  On the other hand,
conference world markets (virtual conference, meeting rooms, etc.) have a
stronger incentive to provide space and communications facilities for
pre-existing avatars (branded identities that remain constant through the
meeting cycles).   Life cycle is medium to long term.  This is the sweet
spot for standards.

O  Means exist.   The requirements are in conflict.  One sees this in the
military simulation and serious games markets which includes public safety.
The requirement for an efficient simulation that enables different agencies
with different virtual assets to come online at varying points in the
simulation scenario indisputably means interoperable assets.   At the same
time, the vendors are mixing up very large world mapping (eg, Google Earth)
requirements with the simulation and as the scale of the map increases, the
effectiveness of various non-proprietary means is in question (eg, XML).
The conflict is most pronounced of course where the costs of the datasets
are high and the need for long lifecycle support is being suborned to the
efficiency of the simulation.   Standards are badly needed here but the FUD
factor of the emerging market is very high.  This is a caveat emptor market.

Proposals for standards for interoperability tend to vary by the emphasis on
messaging data (so-called back-end telemetry) vs cost of 3D assets (eg, the
portable branded avatar, terrain maps, branded real-world building facades).
In a real-world 3D simulation, separating the messaging/telemetry from the
in-world messaging (gestures, kinesthesics, etc.) is not straightforward.

len
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.