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

[David Wagner]

Charles Landau  wrote:
>David Wagner wrote:
>> 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?

I don't care; as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to pick whatever
definition or name you prefer.  My point is only that if the goal is
to figure out what a good petname-like system _ought_ to look like,
then presumably human factors ought to be part of the discussion.

To put it another way:

If you like the definition above and want to stick with it, that's fine
with me.  But my concern is that if you follow it religiously, you may end
up with something that has dubious human factors properties in this case,
undermining the stated goals of petname systems.  Alternatively, if you
want to change the definition to something else, that's fine with me, too.