I agree. I think perhaps what we need is a standard taxonomy for things
in cyberspace (probably an object-oriented type of hierarchy). The
rendered representation for each object (or subtree) can then be defined
by the user as suits their needs (or primed by their navigator application),
but underlying it all everyone will be navigating the same basic conceptual
space.
If this taxonomy were defined as part of the VRML protocol (and it would
of course be extensible by the user), all cyberstuff would be classified
according to its ontology, allowing more powerful and useful tools for
navigation.
>They can all design their own way to do things and trade
>them with others because of the standard. The inclination of people is to
>use what they understand and can discuss with others -- naturally leading to
>a benevolent evolution of design forms and metaphor just as it has in
>the real world.
>
> It is up to us as early on designers to suggest some potential
>starting places, and avoid imposing restrictions on what is possible.
>
> PeterK
I think the breakout of services as defined by the Object Management Group
for the CORBA spec might be something useful to look at too. I think this
structure might be useful for defining the modes of interaction within a
VRML document.
Rick Duffy, Martin Marietta Astronatics
duffy@den.mmc.com or rduffy@nyx.cs.du.edu