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

Re: Interledger Architecture: OWPS naming

From: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:45:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+nC-Xs+cHEz0pHQvTmi3tTsJKT+ctgC77V5AOtYaJwjm=D+Yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>
Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>
In light of Adrian's comments elsewhere, would it make sense to include
"Simple" in any new name here? (SIPS, SOPS etc... Much as I like OPUS,
SOPUS somehow doesn't have quite the same ring to it... )


On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com> wrote:

> Roger,
> I like your IPS (Internet Payment System) idea. Sounds like a force to be
> reckoned with, in the most general sense.
> On Mar 24, 2016 10:17 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
Received on Monday, 28 March 2016 16:46:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 28 March 2016 16:46:49 UTC