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 12:19:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+nC-Xs6N6iXhb65ww-ZFbQYEDC0CTW0=oUySpMx808v3waNQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Cc: Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>
Adrian, you explain above that you're thinking of this as "web-like in
architecture", hence the proposed name. But it seems to me that term might
likely be generally understood as "relating to the World-wide Web", which
it's really not. For that reason "Internet" seems better to me. (SIPS is
also easier to say than SWPS... which is worse than OWPS, actually, from
that perspective!).

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> 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 19:20:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 28 March 2016 19:20:58 UTC