[vos-d] VOS requirements - identities and user configs

[Reed Hedges]

Peter Amstutz wrote:
>>
>> "There shall be a bidirectional mapping between X3D and Interreality  
>> 3D capabilities and semantics."
>>

>> Can the mapping truly be bidirectional, considering that VOS contains  
>> *more* information than just a scene graph? What about X3D scripting  
>> and VOS scripting, is there supposed to be a mapping too?
> 
> What I had in mind was that you would be able to load up an X3D file 
> complete with scripts, and that it would seamlessly translate between 
> X3D data structures and events and VOS data structures and events, so 
> that VRML/X3D would a mostly first class authoring language for 
> Interreality 3D.  

One reason to have a "bidirectional mapping" rather than just a 
translation is that VRML and X3D specify a runtime as well as a static 
format; we want to be able to "run" an X3D or VRML world (and its routes 
and scripts etc.) online.

>> My idea is to create a user profile once, and let the user carry it  
>> around with them. The profile is a small VOS graph.
...
>> When a user wishes to join a particular world, he uploads the profile  
>> to the server. 
...
>> When the users leaves the server, he downloads the (modified)  
>> profile, 

 > It seems to me there are a
> few issues, though.  For one, if you don't store a copy on the server, 
> and the user disconnects unexpectedly, they may not have a up-to-date 
> information (or maybe nothing at all).

If it's Vobjets, there's no upload or download stage, so it should stay 
in sync unless you disconnect right in the middle of a read or write 
(which actually might be a general issue to investigate).

The client has already established a connection to the server, so it 
ought to be able to accept packets even if there's a firewall right?

> 
> Also, this means the user can't log in from anywhere, but has to always 
> use the same account on the same computer because that's where their 
> identity is saved, unless they also store their data on a server 
> somewher where they can get it.

Right, you could have a seperate set of "identity servers" that contain 
persistent user identities and configurations etc.  World servers could 
access them directly, or the user's client could mirror them for the 
duration of a session (to take a load of the identity/config servers). 
This would be a place where we could use some replication and version 
merging tools perhaps :)




> 
> However, I do like the idea of some kind of single-sign-on identity, 
> which could be client managed (i.e. something like a PGP key).  Then 
> creating an account or logging into a site is just a matter of sending 
> your public key and authenticating yourself, no "please choose a login 
> name and password" bullshit required for every single site.  

Like MS Passport but not monopolized by MS :)



Reed