Re: need reason description for exclusion of UseCase v1

+1 to avoiding the word wallet. Putting it in quotes was my way of saying I
don't think we should call this thing a wallet but I have no better
suggestion.

This "____ agent" (does it have to be an agent) needs to be referenced in
the updated charter (which i am working on currently) and it has a few
other roles (such as being the target of registrations by the user) so I
don't know if selection agent is going to be descriptive enough.

Perhaps the charter should simply state the roles that must be provided and
not assume they will be performed by the same service?


On 23 June 2015 at 21:47, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 06/23/2015 03:11 PM, Dave Raggett wrote:
> > In my talk [1], I was careful to avoid the term wallet given that
> > people differ in what they think it means, and instead referred to
> > the roles for specific tasks, e.g. selection agent, receipt agent and
> > payment instrument.  For V1, we can ignore the receipt agent, and
> > just talk about the selection agent and payment instrument.   We can
> > leave “wallet” until later, and I expect that when we want to allow
> > one agent to performs multiple roles, then we want indeed want to try
> > to use the term wallet for such agents.
>
> +1, revisiting the "wallet" terminology debate feels like it'll prevent
> us from getting more pressing things done.
>
> While the "______ agent" terminology is a bit awkward to use, I have a
> better idea of what it means than "wallet".
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice
> https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
>
>