This is from a live blog post by Peter Brantly of O'Reilly Radar from a conference hosted by the Hewlett Foundation on Friday. They are discussing options for virtual world platforms for education and standards. The options:
- Funders support dozens of experiments on dozens of worlds that are not inter-operable, none of which are likely to operate at scale large enough to build meaningful community (default).
- Try to force interoperability standards or wait for them to be developed.
- Fund the development of an ideal platform.
- Pick a platform that provides adequate services and start a community, pushing for interoperability and openness.
Possible evaluation criteria for virtual worlds ...
Functionality: graphics quality; APIs for simulation;
interface tools; authoring tools; links to 2D web; chat/voice
capabilities; support for multiple instances; ADA issues.
Performance: expansion, reliability, stability, scalability.
Compatibility: support for multiple platforms; import/export
of standard CAD files; APIs for widely used physics and other engines;
firewall co-existence.
Security: trust mgmt; identity mgmt; security against hacks; protection against theft; protection against malicious users.
Legal and Mgmt:
open source?; IP (who owns created objects?); privacy policy; money
(micro-pays, conversion to RW currency); mgmt of abusive behavior;
access via subscription, secure areas, age-restricted areas?
Installed based: # of actual users; number, quality and
diversity of objects free or for sale; size of developer community;
level of adoption by academic, corporate, government users.
Example virtual worlds: Second Life; Active Worlds; Entropia; Olive
Example engines: Multiverse, Croquet, Delta3D
Comments