>>I guess I'm saying that the URL is (in the abscence of URNs) the name of
>>the object. Much better than arbritray names like "teapot" because they
>>also say how to get the generic object if I dont have it cached, or on my
>>CDROM etc.
Robert said
>Okay, I see this as separate from the cache stuff but... In what way better
>than an arbitrary name? An abstract dynamic name can be a powerfull thing
>when it comes to using objects. The client or server can have a dictionary
>of hashed keys that have many URLs (or something similar with URNs) for a
>given object name. In the same way, it can have a single name for many URLs,
>it could also have many names for a single URL. Since we are talking about
>objects, I see no reason not to think about object memory and references.
>References and pointers are powerfull tools that no programmer would be
>without. I'm not reccomending that it be added, but I do think aliasing is a
>great thing to have.
The advantage of using URL is that the client can fetch the default if it
doesnt have it. It can't fetch an abstract name without us having to build
a lookup service to resolve those into URL's. While I believe that such a
service is usefull and propose it for handling URNs, its orthogonal to the
issue of specifying a second choice to use if/while you haven't got the
first.
>having objects be able to be either defined by
>a (.wrl) or contained in a (.wrl) (ie: VRML is heirarchical).
I'd prefer us NOT to have multiple objects in a single .wrl, the
granularity we have for downloading files is great, and allows clever
things like opening multiple channels, caching one file and not another
etc.
>
>>In your suggestion, I think the disagreement is not in generic, versus
>>specific functionality, its in where the control goes, I believe that the
>>world builder is the one who should control what gets seen, so as an object
>>builder I put together a kitchen and say that I'd like this really cool
>>teapot, but in its abscence I'm willing to put up with the generic teapot
>>that is specified here, I'm typicalyl not going to want to allow just any
>>old thing that someone else has called a teapot, and if I was a competent
>>world-builder then I'd test my world with both the specific and generic
>>components.
>
>Well, I'm more disturbed about adding keywords into the ODL for the
>retrieval of the object but I do have some differing opinions on your above
>comment, so here they are. I'm much more excited about the possibilities of
>user configurability than the ability for an author to keep his world in his
>own image. Excuse the excessive use of "world", but the world just doesn't
>work that way. If I design a world, for example, it might be hard for me to
>let go of it and give it up to the public, but still I would be really
>excited to see how people have decided to (for example) furnish my space.
>What sort of things have they done to my space to make it more enjoyable for
>them. Like I said, however, I'm not too passionate about named objects at
>this point. But I do think they are important if you are going to want
>people to really interact with a world, feel that it has become theirs or
>even be able move things around. On one hand, if someone decorates a store
>painstakingly to do some electronic commerce, they may not want someone
>coming in and making their own version of it. On the other hand, if that's
>what it takes to get someone to spend more time their, they'll probably want
>them do it.
These again are mixing two entirely different concepts...
Concept 1: I specify there is a teapot on the table, I want a fancy teapot,
but will accept a generic one while you download the fancy one. This is a
static world, that I've built and want to present to you.
Concept 2: I build a table, and allow you to put anything you like on it,
this is a dynamic world, and something we'd potentially build with stuff in
VRML2.
- Mitra
=======================================================================
Mitra [email protected]
Worlds Inc (415)281-1308
<http://earth.path.net/mitra> fax (415)284-9483