- From: Lucas Huber <lh@codoo.io>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:12:32 +0100
- To: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>,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>
- Message-ID: <8DF7C04E-CBE5-458A-9346-4B07A9862E3C@codoo.io>
+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.
Received on Friday, 25 March 2016 16:12:57 UTC