[cap-talk] Petnames versus E-order with ocaps

[Charles Landau]

David Wagner wrote:
> Charles Landau  wrote:
>> Karp, Alan H wrote:
>>> If Bob has a reference to Carol that he calls foo, a
>>> reference to Carol that Bob receives from Alice will also be denoted
>>> foo.
>> Those two references have different properties, so they are different 
>> references, in other words references to different objects. So they 
>> should have different petnames.
> 
> That sounds on the surface like it may have lousy usability properties.
> Or perhaps what I mean to say is this.  Petnames exist for the purpose of
> helping humans to use the system safely, so any consideration of whether
> these two differences should have the same petname or not ought to take
> into account human factors.

We started with the definition:
Given a particular user context (in which names are interpreted), a 
petname is a one to one binding between an object reference and a name.

If different references have the same petname, then it's not a 
one-to-one relation.

Are you proposing a different definition?