Re: Renaming Object Capabilities to Authorization Capabilities?

+1 to changing from "object capabilities" and o-cap to something that
reflects authorization.

Now, on to the bikeshedding (which itself is one of my favorite terms in
tech ;-)

   - I really like the way "zCaps" sounds—it's catchy—and although I agree
   with Christopher that it sounds like zero-knowledge...I suspect that zCaps
   might only be used with insiders who know the Z stands for authorization.
   - I'm truly torn between "Authorization Capabilities" and
   "Authorized Capabilities" because, as I understand the way capabilities
   work, those who have been authorized (delegated) may also authorize
   (delegate) further.

I could live with any of these—they are all improvements.

(BTW, this reminds me of why the Sovrin Foundation recently switched terms
from "trust frameworks" to "governance frameworks"—we discovered the latter
was more intuitive and easier for non-insiders to understand.)

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Christopher Lemmer Webber <
cwebber@dustycloud.org> wrote:

> Christopher Allen writes:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:27 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> shortened to "zCaps" for the cool kids in the community.
> >>
> >
> > I am -1 for zCaps as a short. Adding z to things lately has been
> marketing
> > speak for zero-knowledge, which ocap is not. And over hyped.
> >
> > -- Christopher Allen
>
> FWIW, the name "zcap" was inspired by Alan Karp's use of "ZBAC" as a
> term (intentionally contrasted to RBAC) to inform companies that didn't
> understand what ocaps were or what domain they might want to apply them
> to.
>
>