RE: Multiple Wallets

Hello Joseph,

If that’s what was intended anyway, I’m happy with it. Perhaps I’m too implementation-oriented to find my way through generic sentences like those you referred to. ;-)

Ciao,
                Jörg

From: Joseph Potvin [mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca]
Sent: Montag, 3. August 2015 13:41
To: Web Payments IG
Subject: Re: Multiple Wallets

RE: "being a depository and a repository - in our eyes is the capability to process requests for certain types of transactions and delegate them to the respective services as the user choses (or has them pre-configured)"

Joerg,

That is precisely what is intended by including the word "algorithm" in "a 'repository' for persistent storage of enduring integral artifacts (e.g. payment method algorithms, receipts, coupons, credentials, etc.)".
Perhaps it could be more explicitly worded, or if necessary elaborated.
Basically, to relate this proposed working definition of an e-wallet to a physical wallet:

* It is a "depository" for the temporary storage of information in the form of authorized scalar units of money (as either tokens and/or scalar values in a registry)
=
* It's where I put my money

...and also:

* It is a "repository" for persistent storage of enduring integral artifacts (e.g. payment method algorithms, receipts, coupons, credentials, etc.)
=
* It's where put my credit cards, debit cards, driver's license, transit pass, café card, etc.

Does this address what you have in mind?

Joseph Potvin
On behalf of DataKinetics http://www.dkl.com

Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca<mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>
Mobile: 819-593-5983

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:49 AM, <Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de<mailto:Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de>> wrote:
Hello all,

Another aspect - besides being a depository and a repository - in our eyes is the capability to process requests for certain types of transactions and delegate them to the respective services as the user choses (or has them pre-configured).

We need to be aware of the fact that, while several approaches we see today claim to be 'wallets', their inventors have no fundament to make their product as 'neutral' wrt/ payment instruments as my leather wallet is, because there are no such neutral transaction protocols available (yet). It is the lack of what we aim to accomplish, that blurs the word 'wallet' and the semantics associated.

I think that our work represents a good example for a wallet that governs the overall transaction but leaves the implementation for a specific instrument open. However, we can do so because we have an R&D prototype not a product. Every product meant to succeed in the market and eventually earn money, will have to do proprietary stuff and tie things together.

I believe it's our job, to do the respective disentanglement and come up with specifications that are needed to allow 'Wallets' according to our definition to come into life.

Cheers,
        Jörg

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Potvin [mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca<mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>]
Sent: Samstag, 1. August 2015 13:47
To: Web Payments IG
Subject: Re: Multiple Wallets

RE: "I think it's clear that nobody is talking about the same thing here :)  I think the term "wallet" and "payment instrument" will only make sense in the context of a particular concrete proposal."

Given the prominence of the "wallet" concept in the Charter, and given the IG's decision that the Charter will not include work towards standardization of an electronic wallet specification, and yet given the absence of any working definiition of electronic wallet in this or any  other reference document, this topic promises to be an inevitable source of lasting debate.

In work underway at DataKinetics on a free/libre/open source module to enhance any e-invoice, we required a sufficiently generic and yet semantically specific working definition of any e-wallet so that the requirements for information exchanged between the two could be specified. I suggest the same is required for the other side of the e-wallet, which is any e-payment system.

A week ago I offered the following suggestion. I hope it will be okay to repeat myself, as I didn't see any replies on its substance...

***
1. On the topic of wallets:

SUGGESTION: There was considerable discussion on this list about whether or not the term "wallet" was helpful or confusing. It appears there's a preference to keep it. Let me therefore suggest the following concise functional definition summarizing our approach at
DataKinetics:

An e-wallet has two general functions:
* It is a "depository" for the temporary storage of information in the form of authorized scalar units of money (as either tokens and/or scalar values in a registry)
* It is a "repository" for persistent storage of enduring integral artifacts (e.g. payment method algorithms, receipts, coupons, credentials, etc.)

***

In the above, we are attempting to align with the WG IV (e-Commerce) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). This top-level global legal standards body distinguishes two systems for the management of electronic transferable records (their most generic term): “registry-based” and “token-based”. A registry contains information about the electronic transferable records including “the identification of a sole owner of the record and of the rights incorporated in that record at any time”. In contrast, a token is an original and unique record, with which a transfer of rights is accomplished through transfer of control over the record itself. A token-based system for electronic payments is similar in its basic procedures to a paper-based payments system.
(UNCITRAL, 2012, p. 7) A registry-based payments system implements control via the management of verifiable unique identities; a token-based payments system implements control via the management of verifiable unique tokens.

Source: UNCITRAL. (2012). Legal issues relating to the use of electronic transferable records (Version dated 17 August 2012). United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Working Group IV (Electronic Commerce). Forty-sixth Session, Vienna, 29
October-2 November 2012. United Nations General Assembly (A/CN.9/WG.IV/WP.118). Retrieved from https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/workinggroups/wg_4/WG4-WP_118_e.pdf




Joseph Potvin
On behalf of DataKinetics http://www.dkl.com Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca<mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>
Mobile: 819-593-5983<tel:819-593-5983>

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Brett Wilson <brettw@google.com<mailto:brettw@google.com>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net<mailto:mountie@paygate.net>> wrote:
>>
>> is anybody share the latest link of glossary for wallet, payment scheme, payment instrument?
>>
>> in the user's view of payment instrument, for example, credit card is
>> one of payment instrument.
>> google wallet(or apple pay) is the container of payment
>> instruments(credit card and/or more)
>>
>> I thought that the container is the wallet.
>>
>> to process credit card payment, users may choose google wallet(or apple pay..) when merchant accept it.
>
>
> OK, I think it's clear that nobody is talking about the same thing
> here :)
>
> I think the term "wallet" and "payment instrument" will only make sense in the context of a particular concrete proposal. Right now things are too ambiguous for any consensus. I am going to stop worrying about this.
>
> Brett