Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu
From: broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: Toward a Typology/Topology of Virtual Worlds
Message-ID: <11642@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 90 04:05:25 GMT
References: <11583@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 79
Approved: hitl@hardy.u.washington.edu



In article <11583@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Rob
ert Jacobson) writes:
>Bernie Roehl, in a discussion of MUDs, has raised the very significant
>issue:  How do we categorize virtual worlds?

Since I was the one who opened this particular can of worms, let me be
the first to pull one out.

I would suggest that we view all the various possible types of virtual
worlds as coexisting in a kind of "multiverse".  The different types are
not connected, because they have different representations (different
"laws" govern them, if you will).

>Has anyone thoughts along the lines of how we might create a typology,
>based on the topology, of virtual worlds?

The typology might be based not so much on *topology* as on the
representation scheme used (since that is what restricts a particular
abstract "thing" to a particular type of VR).  A character from a novel
would not necessarily be found wandering around a Cyberspace building.
(Or rather, if they *were* found there it would be a character with
many similar attributes to, but disconnected from, the text 
version (i.e. changes to one don't affect the other)).

>This typology might include
>everything from the static "world" of the written page to the ultra-
>dynamic, interactive virtual worlds that we more often speak about
>here.

I strongly feel that a VR must be interactive.  To me, a book is not
(strictly speaking) a VR, nor is television.  Neither is a film or a
recording.

It should also be possible for multiple people to share
in the virtual reality.  (This does not mean that VRs must *always* be
occupied by more than one person, but rather that the capability must be
there).

Beyond that, I believe a true VR should be malleable, in the sense
that it changes over time as a result of the actions of people interacting
with it.  (Simply being able to fast-forward over commercials on a VCR does
not make videotapes an example of VR, even though the user is interacting
with it).

Aside from that, very few restrictions apply.  Furthermore, the list of
attributes that characterize a VR is large and extensible.

Let's consider two possible attributes...

The virtual world that we're sharing right now (i.e. the one in which
this discussion is taking place) is characterized by being text-based
and non-synchronous (i.e.  people post at random times in a random
sequence, and the order of arrival of articles can vary from site to
site).

Internet Relay Chat is text-based but synchronous.

A telephone "party line" is speech-based and synchronous.

The particular flavor of VR that we often discuss in this newsgroup is
visual and synchronous.

MUDs are text-based and synchronous/asynchronous (i.e. people can interact
in "real time", but can also leave each other virtual notes and in other
ways modify the virtual environment in a way that affects other people at
a later point in time).

And so on.

This is a first cut at a typology, and it's late and I'm tired, but I hope
it provides a jumping-off point for discussion...

-- 
        Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept
        Mail: broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu OR broehl@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
        BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watserv1!broehl
        Voice:  (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work]