Re: Interledger Architecture: OWPS naming

+1 OPUS    Utizilation Scheme would fit too.

Lucas

Am 25. März 2016 17:00:52 MEZ, schrieb Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>:
>+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>
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.