W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Interledger Architecture: OWPS naming

From: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:00:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+nC-XtnBjBy6s7B5c8YH7E0mj=ei3qtk15=hYhgP4xFYP4CfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Oliver Leung <oliverleung@gmail.com>
Cc: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>
+1 on OPUS

I note also the term: "magnum opus", great work :-)

"U" could also stand for "unification" or some such term, though I'm not
sure that's better than "user".

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Oliver Leung <oliverleung@gmail.com> wrote:

> Name Suggestion: *O*pen *P*ayment *U*ser *S*cheme
> o·pus
> ˈōpəs/
> *noun*
> noun: *opus*; plural noun: *opuses*; plural noun: *opera*
>
>    1. *1*.
>    MUSIC
>    a separate composition or set of compositions by a particular
>    composer, usually ordered by date of publication.
>    "*The Gambler* was Prokofiev's sixth opera, despite its early *opus
>    number*"
>    2. *2*.
>    any artistic work, especially one on a large scale.
>    "he was writing an opus on Mexico"
>    synonyms: composition
>    <https://www.google.com/search?q=define+composition&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio3qD1ldzLAhUMxmMKHVDUBEsQ_SoIIDAA>
>    , work
>    <https://www.google.com/search?q=define+work&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio3qD1ldzLAhUMxmMKHVDUBEsQ_SoIITAA>
>    , work of art
>    <https://www.google.com/search?q=define+work+of+art&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio3qD1ldzLAhUMxmMKHVDUBEsQ_SoIIjAA>
>    , oeuvre
>    <https://www.google.com/search?q=define+oeuvre&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio3qD1ldzLAhUMxmMKHVDUBEsQ_SoIIzAA>
>    , piece
>    <https://www.google.com/search?q=define+piece&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio3qD1ldzLAhUMxmMKHVDUBEsQ_SoIJDAA>
>    , creation
>    <https://www.google.com/search?q=define+creation&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio3qD1ldzLAhUMxmMKHVDUBEsQ_SoIJTAA>
>    "her latest opus is a critical success"
>
> Origin
> [image: Inline image 1]
> early 18th century: from Latin, literally ‘work.’
>
> Bring it!
>
>
> <http://t.signauxdeux.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0SmZ58dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7sM9dn7dK_MMdBzM2-04?t=http%3A%2F%2Foliverleung.com%2F&si=6060383291310080&pi=4af31bcc-e5c2-47ea-a992-b1d6c8ba5f87>
>
> *"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all."  *
> - Helen Keller
> <http://t.signauxdeux.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0SmZ58dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7sM9dn7dK_MMdBzM2-04?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biography.com%2Fpeople%2Fhelen-keller-9361967&si=6060383291310080&pi=4af31bcc-e5c2-47ea-a992-b1d6c8ba5f87>
> (c. 1957)
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com> wrote:
>
>> Great questions and points.
>>
>> ILP is about moving assets securely, but it doesn't include much of the
>> who or why in it, which are necessary for something like a consumer payment
>> scheme.
>>
>> My take on OWPS (terrible name, I agree) is that it's about defining the
>> higher level protocols and rules needed to make a full(ish) payment scheme
>> on top of ILP. Importantly, this "scheme" would differ from existing ones
>> because it would be operator-less and much more open. It would be more like
>> the internet that's governed by some general understandings about what
>> being connected to the internet means for you, as well as bilateral
>> relationships between the companies that comprise it. An example of the
>> type of rule that would need to be defined is whether there are chargebacks.
>>
>> Some questions to answer on the payment scheme level:
>>
>>    - Should we define the *ways to communicate* the rules and what
>>    information is required by the various participants to execute a payment?
>>    (This would give more flexibility but would be more complex and could
>>    potentially lead to situations where the rules don't match up between two
>>    providers and no payments can be sent between them)
>>    - Should we define *the rules and what* information is supplied with
>>    the payment? (This could make interoperability between those that
>>    specifically opted to join the scheme a lot simpler, though we'd also need
>>    to recognize that not everyone would get on board with it immediately, if
>>    ever)
>>    - What else would the agreements between the FIs involved in this
>>    scheme need to include, and how standardized would the agreements (need to)
>>    be if they're not being enforced by a single governing party?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stefan et al,
>>>
>>> OWPS, the Open Web Payment Scheme, doesn't seem particularly
>>> web-oriented - so we could lose the W for starters - so OPS maybe. And
>>> incidentally - should this be a Scheme, a Protocol, a Framework or
>>> something else?
>>>
>>> As you say, the overall project is "Interledger" so, how about OIPS, or
>>> IPS? ("I" could even be "Internet" if we wanted to reserve "Interledger"
>>> for the lower protocol layers).
>>>
>>> As a more user-friendly name, we could use OpenPay (o-Pay)... or even
>>> i-Pay... though there might be trademark issues there.
>>>
>>> But per my other email, maybe some clarification on scope and goals for
>>> this protocol layer would help frame the naming question.
>>>
>>> Roger
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Evan Schwartz | Software Architect | Ripple
>> [image: ripple.com]
>> <http://t.signauxdeux.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0SmZ58dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7sM9dn7dK_MMdBzM2-04?t=http%3A%2F%2Fripple.com%2F&si=6060383291310080&pi=4af31bcc-e5c2-47ea-a992-b1d6c8ba5f87>
>>
>
>


image.png
(image/png attachment: image.png)

Received on Friday, 25 March 2016 16:02:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 25 March 2016 16:02:02 UTC