Avoid overloaded terminology
The current proposal for FA2 uses the term “owner” to describe the entity that owns the tokens modelled by an FA2 contract. However, the term “owner” is also widely used to describe an entity that has special privileges of controlling the smart-contract itself by the virtue of being the one who deployed (and thus “owns”) it. For example, there is a widely used interface in Ethereum called Ownable
.
I think it would be better to remove the ambiguity by saying “holder” instead of “owner”.
A similar concern applies to the term “operator”, however I don’t have any good suggestion for a replacement term.