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

Re: Interledger Architecture: OWPS naming

From: Yanesh Tyagi <yanesh.tyagi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:29:20 +0530
Message-ID: <CAD014XYyvzVCOmLtVmwDs3EZt7bahKMBq3b8EpyYVA=AQZ7_BA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>
Cc: Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Hi,

>From the mail chain, I got that we are focusing on 'Simple', 'Open',
'Internet' and 'Payment'.

That is Simple Open Payment Protocol for Internet or SOPPI. Does this makes
sense?

Yanesh Tyagi
On 29-Mar-2016 12:51 am, "Roger Bass" <roger@traxiant.com> wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 29 March 2016 06:31:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 March 2016 06:31:07 UTC