Re: the terms for to and from

would via not be better modelled as two transactions?

Pelle Braendgaard wrote:
> via would be the one to use if it's necessary.
> 
> I personally can't see the need for it though in a TCP/IP world where
> everything is in theory directly connected.
> 
> That said I don't understand all the web credits use cases.
> 
> P
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Miller <amiller@cs.ucf.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Is there a "via"
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Pelle Braendgaard
>> <pelle@stakeventures.com> wrote:
>>> I've always argued it is more intuitive and follows other similar email
>>> standards, which is why we use it in OpenTransact.
>>>
>>> I think the PaySwarm community expressed some openness to change to that
>> at
>>> some point.
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I've been looking at the terms "to" and "from" wrt a transfer in
>>>> webcredits / opentransact / payswarm and pingback ongologies
>>>>
>>>> Payswarm uses
>>>>
>>>> source
>>>> destination
>>>>
>>>> Opentransact uses
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>> from
>>>>
>>>> Pingback uses
>>>>
>>>> source
>>>> target
>>>>
>>>> There's a slight complexity in that pingback has a "to" field to which
>> is
>>>> your pingback service.  So there's possible collisions of named query
>>>> variables a theoretical possibility.
>>>>
>>>> Of these 3 I think that "to" and "from" are the most intuitive, due to
>>>> similarity to email / sms etc.
>>>>
>>>> I'm considering changing web credits to use these fields.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://picomoney.com - A whole new kind of money
>>> http://payglo.be - Blog about payments from a global perspective
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Miller
>>
> 
> 
>