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

Re: Interledger Architecture: OWPS naming

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:53:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_KcJ+GkjFa0unMLNoY+YSa2PD1NMH90AoNJviTTKccoBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>
Cc: Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>
The characteristics I think we're aiming for are:

"open/neutral" - there is no entity controlling the scheme
"simple" - basic payer to payee payments not trying to be everything to
everyone
"web/internet" - web-like in architecture. Interledger attempts to create a
graph of ledgers that resembles the graph of resources on the World Wide
Web. This protocol leverages this with the minimal application layer
functions to provide a full payments stack.

So you can see how we ended at OWPS.
I think some of these (like openness) could be taken as implicit (from
Web-like) so we could go for something like Simple Web Payment Protocol?

On 28 March 2016 at 17:45, Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com> wrote:

> 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... )
>
> Roger
>
> 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 18:54:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 28 March 2016 18:54:04 UTC