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

Re: Interledger Architecture: OWPS naming

From: Oliver Leung <oliverleung@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:45:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CACtkFtUSp6zdXopuAV3u_3638kc5Am_f=DvOpqtw0QP2Z=CJ4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>
Cc: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>
Name Suggestion: *O*pen *P*ayment *U*ser *S*cheme
noun: *opus*; plural noun: *opuses*; plural noun: *opera*

   1. *1*.
   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
   2. *2*.
   any artistic work, especially one on a large scale.
   "he was writing an opus on Mexico"
   synonyms: composition
   , work
   , work of art
   , oeuvre
   , piece
   , creation
   "her latest opus is a critical success"

[image: Inline image 1]
early 18th century: from Latin, literally ‘work.’

Bring it!


*"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all."  *
- Helen Keller <http://www.biography.com/people/helen-keller-9361967> (c.

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://ripple.com>

(image/png attachment: image.png)

Received on Friday, 25 March 2016 21:31:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 25 March 2016 21:31:29 UTC