Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!ifab750
From: ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION:  SCI.VIRTUAL-WORLDS
Keywords: cog sci, JJ Gibson
Message-ID: <21218@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 21 Nov 89 02:29:07 GMT
References: <14547-repost@well.UUCP> <1989Nov16.161429.12549@talos.uucp> <14642@well.UUCP> <20757@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Sender: news@ut-emx.UUCP
Reply-To: ifab750@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Matthew S. Cohen)
Organization: University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture
Lines: 65

In article <20757@unix.cis.pitt.edu> ml@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Michael  Lewis) writes:
>
>The discussion on Rheingold & Jacobson's proposal to create sci.virtual-worlds 
>seems to center on five issues:
>
>5) sci.virtual-worlds is too broad and will lead to meandering unfocused
>	discussions (Mark Mehl & Erik Josowitz)
>
>This is exactly my point in arguing against "cyber" extensions and for
>"sci" rather than "comp" or "talk" designation.  A diversity of disciplines
>interested in a common problem does not imply a lack of focus.  We are
>talking about the intersection not the union of these fields.
>
>In short:  I think that a sci.virtual-world news group is needed and
>appropriate as proposed without modification.
>
>               -Mike Lewis

I think my argument may have been misunderstood (maybe not the first time).
My contention is that there are two flaws in the sci.virtual-worlds
proposal.
1:  a sci group is limiting
     now I don't know what the solution is.  Someone suggested soc
     rather than sci but that doesnt work either.  What we may be witnessing
     here is a prime example of the fact that the net was created originally
     for tech folks and all of the major categories reflect that.  I
     strongly agree with the need for a forum for focused discussion on
     all aspects of VR/AR or Cyberspace research and thought.  I would
     contend that the cyberspace moniker includes the virtual-worlds ideas,
     while the opposite might not be true.  Furthermore, with the coming
     conference in May (some horn tooting perhaps) using the Cyberspace
     label, why not use it for the group as well.  The amount of interest
     which we have recieved in support of the conference suggests that the
     Cyberspace label is inclusive of all fields and that there is very 
     little fear on the part of researchers to associate themselves with
     that word.
2:  discussions should be meandering
     I believe that discussions in the group should be meandering!  I
     believe that the number of fiel;ds whose research points towards
     VR/AR/Cspace would almost require that discussions wander between
     many fields and topics.  In my first posting, I was trying to present
     the fact that cyberspace should not be limited to any field, as the
     suggestions for comp.interfaces would have it do.  I would also argue
     (as above) that the sci label might do the same.

THE GROUP NEEDS TO BE CREATED, 
WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A NAME THAT WILL BE MOST INVITING
TO ANYONE WHO HAS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST INKLING THAT 
WHAT THEY DO MIGHT RELATE.
ONLY IN THIS MANNER WILL DISCUSSIONS BE AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE.
ONLY BY ENCOURAGING BROAD-BASED DISCUSSION WILL THE GROUP BE
AS PRODUCTIVE AS POSSIBLE.

=erik josowitz
university of texas school of architecture
First Conference on Cyberspace 
May 4-5, 1990
Austin, TX

=============================================================================
erik josowitz | University of Texas SOA | erik@vitruvius.ar.utexas.edu.UUCP
=============================================================================
"run into the bedroom, in the suitcase on the bed you'll find my favorite axe"
---Pink Floyd
=============================================================================