Use of "ParticipantIdentifier", "Participant Identifier" and "Recipient" in SMP

[Kenneth Bengtsson <kbengtsson@efact.pe>]

Dear all

Working through the SMP 2.0 specification I am trying to update the language used to make it less “PEPPOL jargon”, and in that process trying to read the text with fresh eyes, probably for the first time since the PEPPOL project days..

One thing that strikes me is that the SMP 1.0 specification makes (almost) consistent use of the term “Participant Identifier”, and states that the purpose of SMP is to facilitate that a sending party discovers how to send a document to a Participant Identifier. I don’t find that to be true. I believe that a sending party wants to send a document to an intended recipient - the “Participant Identifier” is just a bit of information that uniquely identifies the recipient in the network.

Furthermore, SMP 1.0 doesn’t offer the explanation that "Participant Identifier" is synonymous with "recipient". Ironically, the introduction of SMP 1.0 offers a definition of "recipient", which is identical with how "Participant Identifier" is used in the specification.

For now I am simply replacing the term "Participant Identifier" with "Participant" (except in places where Participant Identifier is used as a technical term to refer to the ID of a Participant), and adding an explanation in the introduction that recipients in 4-cornered networks are referred to as participants (which is how it has been used so far). We can always change this later.

I will add it as an item to the agenda for our next meeting on the 14th. And if anyone has an opinion on this, please share it beforehand.

/Kenneth