features

secure 3D environments

coupled with video and audio

ability to use existing/external tools designed specifically for doing sophisticated content creation

+in-world collaboration (building, scripting)

= embedded external tools

access – needs to be easy, consistent, reliable. interoperability/transition to, and integration with other online experiences needs to work (SLURLs, links, etc.). technology levels, bandwidth etc. need to be able to cater to even the lowest technological denominator.

numbers – how many people the platform can support at one time, and in what densities. also the density of content. want support for high numbers, and dense enough content to engage dense numbers of people.

mashup of 2D and 3D – intelligently using each medium for what it's best at; and again, seamless integration between them.

good search tools for

3D messaging, social applications

integration with geo-referenced data.

support for easy processing of data into formats supported across the virtual spectrum (import/export)

multiple platforms/windows into the VW, each tailored to different purposes

support for real time data steaming

remote observation and manipulation of objects via the virtual world

 

architecture

mini-worlds/experiences and maxi worlds/experiences

mini: plugin architecture,

more guided/controlled experiences

maxi: larger time investment, standalone clients, sectioned off from other experiences/mediums.

ability to “do” this kind of experience in a “lighter” way.

open, common protocols

open data models

distributed processing

XML-like object definition system (dynamic?)

mini-experiences need a way to seamlessly interact/communicate with existing architectures ('links')

'layers' of scientific accuracy and/or user-generated content and/or user-defined worlds, overlaid onto a common architecture. one or more could be 'enabled', they would need to integrate/inter-operate with each other.

cross-platform

(SQL) relational database driven backend (robust, extensible).

variety of clients to work with underlying architecture. not everything needs to be open source per se, but the framework certainly needs to be.

atomic definitions of information which impact how aggregate content is created and the useability and re-mixability of it. (“microformats”).

plugins architecture can catalyze eventual unification of those plugins into a single architecture, after each specific area has gone through its growing/evolving pains (?? is this dangerous? how will each one interrelate?)

although there should be one common architecture, there can also be many different clients which offer different features to access that architecture.

 

VW strengths

visualizing information

making data interactive and intuitive

second life has very good in-world collaboration in certain ways.

 

VW weaknesses

limited tools for building scientifically sophisticated content

second life, most other VWs dont have useful ways to import models

limited in terms of representing real world stuff.

sensory deprivation

 

trends

physical-world integration

mashups of geographical information browsers/”mirror worlds” (cf. world wind, google earth) and “virtual” worlds (second life, digital earth, etc.)

currently different platforms for science/mirror worlds and playful/education/virtual worlds – in the future they will come together in one platform.

people want to be in control of their environments; more and more online experiences, services and tools have a user-defined and/or a user-contributed element(s).

moving from outreach/education to engineering/more sophisticated visualizations.

hi-rez mobile devices will be a big trend, and the hardware to go with it. (small sensors, mobile-relevant information generating devices and hotspots).

fewer people will lug around computers – the 'online' experience will move into more 'mini' experiences, and more integrated into the physical world.

accessibility of data generated by organizations and individuals – more open, and much more of it.

retinal projections

the geo-web. (photosynth, planetary data browsers).

hardware sensors getting smaller, more powerful

challenges

technology has struggled to keep up with the standards (and our ability to conceive of what we COULD do versus what we CAN do).

there is a lack of standards that people feel WORK. standards are adopted but dont have buy-in. people fracture off from them.

need more common methods, common VW 'kernels'

==> a framework that is simple and extensible

stovepipes (organizational, territorial, etc.) trap innovation and content ==> make it harder to build a strong community with a common goal. ==> open source platform addresses much of this.

the translation of experience between different types of online experiences, especially as those experiences get more varied.

how to balance development of a consistent underlying architecture/scafforlding with feature-set of specific 'mini' or plugin or microformat experiences?

 

space relevance/needs

making their work as interactive as possible

different aspects of space exploration will be tuned to and characterized by different VW clients/experiences.

sensor networks/clouds for state info on other planets/in space environments.

NASA's needs will absolutely push the envelope of these environments.

spacecraft controlled entirely from within VWs?

'exploring' virtually via very fine-grained data after it has been brought back

 

 

priorities

stability (something people can USE)

outreach is a low hanging fruit but doesnt help to push the envelop on what VWs are capable of.

build and support external / broad involvement in a development effort – small groups and companies.

(identify short term commercial applications ==> incentive for companies to support development. like apache-- thousands of companies benefit from using it).

formally approve use of VWs by NASA personnel.

“one early success” - a platform, a mission, and goal. (LCROSS lunar impact? real-time ISS model?)

immersive virtual world recreations of places on earth with existing high rez imagery (collaborative google earth??).

begin exploring platforms outside of second life. start w a survey of good lightweight VW platforms

develop as many features as possible independent of a certain platform./ generic to any platform. toolsets that can be incorporated, architectures that can support various platforms, etc.

 

on organizing:

WHY hasnt a strong community formed around an open platform for VWs? think because no large org or collection of orgs has gotten behind it, in a way that is open, evolvable and flexible enough. (needs to have these characteristics!)

NASA has the resources to guide and maintain a tight open source development effort, BUT it does not have consistent resources. ==> this supports an open infrastructure as well. (w option for closed *grids* within the open architecture).

cant be one single point of failure for any development effort (ie, cant be just one group working on it).

NASA also should not and cannot fund 100% of the development

bureaucratic hurdle-- senior management doesnt know about or feel comfortable with these technologies.

 

existing VW projects of note:

MUPPETS project (at RIT)

metaverse project

OpenMetaverse project

libsecondlife

croquet

Digital Spaces (digitalspaces.net and digitalspace.com)

opensim

orbiter

 

Notes by Troy McLuhan, August 21, 2007:

- Second Life already uses many previously-existing standards and technologies:

-- QuickTime files for video

-- BMP/Targa/JPEG/PNG files for graphics (textures)

-- BVH files for poses and animations

-- OpenGL

 

- Linden Lab plans to move all Second Life data and communications to open standards and open protocols

 

- The Second Life client software is already open source, and Linden Lab plans to open source much (if not all) of the server software as well

 

- A great place to find out about what the leaders in this field (virtual worlds, the metaverse) are thinking is at http://metaverseroadmap.org/