Re: Naming EDVs for all (Was: Re: [MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2020-01-21 12pm ET

“Safe” can mean more than one thing, e.g. physical thing, conditional state.
“Locker” is a more concrete and unambiguous analogy. So BitLocker, BitVault or DigitalLocker are good, except weak on conveying mobility. But perhaps physical mobility isn’t the important quality to convey anyway. It seems to me more about ubiquity, always available, (via internet) rather than the person carries it with them (like on a flash drive)

Might need to check if chosen name is registered trademark

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Friday, January 31, 2020, 11:41 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote:

On 2020-01-31 8:16 am, Adrian Gropper wrote:
> IndiaStack uses Digilocker. It’s in the context of other 
> identity-linked services.
> https://www.indiastack.org

Interesting. And I think the simplest description of what is being 
stored is "bits", so perhaps:
Bit Locker
or
Bit Safe
Bit Box

I'm unsure about 1 vs. two words. A single word would be nice, but 
there are at least two concepts needed, possibly three: portable safe 
data. Getting that in one word might be tricky unless it's camel case. 
  :-)
SafeDataBox
BitLockBox
BitBox
BitSafe

But camel case won't fly for the general public I think, and anyway 
it's easy to forget the capital or miss it in a transcription.

Steven

> 
> I have tried to steer them in the direction of standards, so far 
> without much success.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:08 AM Steven Rowat 
> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>> wrote:
> 
>    Hello,
>    In the discussion of the Jan 21 CCG call, the section quoted at
>    the end of this email shows to me that there's a general name
>    discussion required around EDVs (Encrypted Data Vaults). "Wallet"
>    is rejected because it has other uses. There's no consensus yet.
> 
>    I believe this is like what happened around "Digital Identifiers",
>    where the whole CCG list got involved, because, as Dave Longley
>    notes at the end of the quote, the naming needs to satisfy the
>    general public as well as developers and codewriters.
> 
>    And I began to think up some possibilities for "safe storage" that
>    already exist in the physical world, perhaps to get the ball
>    rolling in such a discussion. These are:
> 
>    Safe     [banks, homes]
>    Safe Drop   [couriers]
>    Safety Deposit Box    [banks]
>    Deposit Box  [banks, post office]
>    Lockbox   [real estate, travel]
>    Storage    [rental lockers, computer storage]
>    Strongbox   [rental lockers, banks, homes]
>    Secure Sockets   [HTTPS, SSL]
>    Trunk   [travel luggage]
>    Suitcase   [travel luggage]
>    Container    [shipping trade]
> 
>    I believe both "safe" and "mobile" need to be implied, and I'm
>    unsure whether the word "data" is best used or not. So at this
>    point my own preferences would be combinations like:
>    Data Lockbox
>    Safe Box
>    Data Safe
> 
>    etc.
> 
>    Other opinions?
> 
> 
>    On 2020-01-29 8:19 pm, W3C CCG Chairs wrote:
>      > Manu Sporny: ...We, as an organization, want
>      >    to focus on portability, CHAPI, moving wallets, etc. simpler use
>      >    cases. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
>      > Joe Andrieu:  I put myself on the queue - to push back on
>      >    language around wallet vs. vault that Manu used. Naming is hard,
>      >    attempting to be constructive.
>      > Orie Steele: "Wallet" is a terrible name :( ... names are hard...
>      > Drummond Reed: The DIF Glossary Project is drilling deep into
>      >    community definitions of "wallet", "agent", and "credential".
>      >    It's amazing how diverse some of the responses are.
>      > Joe Andrieu:  ChristopherA and I wrote a topic for the last
>      >    rebooting - spoke about how "Identity Wallets" and "Crypto
>      >    Wallets" have similarities, trying to find similarities
>      >    architecturally. Crypto wallets are not in your hardware
>      >    wallet... a wallet is how you control access to your stuff, not
>      >    the actual store that has it. A good crypto wallet could have
>      >    Bitcoin, Ethereum, AltCoins, but the way that tech works is that
>      >    the important stuff is not in the wallets.
>      > Adrian Gropper: +1 To Joe's and Drummond's comments on "wallet"
>      > Stephen Curran: "Wallet" in mainstream usage is the app you have
>      >    on your phone. It's not the bit of the any "thingy" (agent,
>      >    whatever) that stores things. Using that term is fighting a
>      >    losing battle.
>      > Joe Andrieu:  The interfaces that we use to get access to stores
>      >    vs the stores themselves are important. We also need a good
>      >    separation between those so we can move EDVs around w/o changing
>      >    front-end wallet.
>      > Dave Longley: There's probably also a naming issue here where the
>      >    general public will understand "wallet" as all of the
>    layers, but
>      >    developers/technologists should understand there are more layers
> 
> 
>    Steven Rowat
>