Re: Multiple Wallets

Hi Joseph,

thanks…inline

> On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:07 , Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> 
> Sorry I missed that when writing this morning. Now can anyone please clarify: IF the Charter states "digital wallet: A wallet is a container for payment instruments that affords access to them. A digital wallet holds digital payment instruments."  AND IF the Use Case document states "payment instrument: A mechanism used to transfer value from a payer to a payee" THEN shall we conclude that a digital wallet, as currently defined by the W3C WPIG, cannot hold "value"?  It can only hold "mechanisms used to transfer value"? In my propoosed wording, that part would be the "repository".  I've simply said that, in addition, the other part of the wallet can actually hold "value". That part would be the "depository". 

I think that you have to look at the charter as standing alone, and at the moment, the ‘digital wallet’ is like a leather wallet; it holds banknotes, credit cards, and the like (instruments).  Things that can actually be used to make a transaction are instruments.  If a user wants several wallets (e.g. “home”, “work”, “travel”) that’s fine; we can be neutral about that (and we are, in the charter).

It gets complicated that instruments are sometimes built on top of other instruments (e.g. Paypal on top of credit cards and bank accounts).  That doesn’t make them any less an instrument, or any more a wallet.

I think, as I said, the charter is close enough to define a scope without pre-judging the design, which is a delicate balance. I have no doubt all sorts of interesting wrinkles will come up.

> Deliberately conflating the two within the terminology of a W3C specification increases the risk of errors and omissions on the part of implementers and end-users.  Let me pick on here on David Singer's note just now in which "payment instrument" could be "e.g. a specific credit card, a $100 banknote, a specific bitcoin account, and so on". Well, several countries' courts have determined that cryptocurrency units are "virtual commodities". Therefore trading them for what the courts consider to be "money" is subject to sales tax, which is to say, using cryptocurrency units "as" currency would consistute tax evasion. 

Whether you can use all the things that support the APIs, in any given country, is outside both the charter and the specification, I think. 

HTH


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 3 August 2015 20:20:51 UTC