Re: Thanks to all and next steps

RE: "Do you think we need to resolve this question before we launch a WG?"

I should mention I sent my previous message "Might we agree on the
following statement?" just prior to seeing your post "This Interest Group
does not need to resolve today..."

This thread has been over-the-top busy, but I reckon it's because the core
issue here is pivotal. I'm not sure how widely that's felt. But Ian, you
clarified some key parameters in your post "On references from W3C
specifications..."  The discussion about ISO 20022 is just a 'case in
point' within those broader strategic considerations.  Hence to your
question "Do people think that would be an improvement to the draft
charter?"  -- I suggest the issue is not ISO 20022 in particular.

If "this question" has to do with whether the W3C WP IG should explicitly
accept that there are existing legitimate and useful global standards,
principles and model laws in the domains of money, payments and e-commerce
that the WP WG really ought to just accept as boundary conditions for its
own work, then yes, my sense is that this does very much need to get
resolved prior to launch. I understand that I have no authority in the
matter -- I'm just answering your question of what I think.

I piped up because this seems very important -- much discussion took place
on the same general strategic matter during some of the breakout sessions
of the US Fed's Faster Payment Task Force meeting.

To overlook or to sidestep existing legitimate and useful global technical
standards, global system principles and global model laws in the domains of
money, payments and e-commerce wastes time and effort, since those existing
sources do elegantly accommodate what the W3C seeks to accomplish. Why boil
the financial ocean to make a cup of Web espresso?

Anyways, I'll make this my last post on this topic for the time being
(unless asked a question).  :-)

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

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> > On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Nick, Might we agree on the following statement?   "ISO 20022
> standardizes only a message 'scheme' without specifying the various message
> types, because messages are transitory and they evolve with the diversity
> of payment systems in operation. For convenience the ISO 20022 community
> maintains a catalogue of message types structured according to the ISO
> 20022 standard. However that catalogue is not intrinsic to the standard."
> >
> > Are you recommending that the IG's work should not even accept any
> dependence upon the financial industry's messaging scheme (or compatible)?
>
> Joseph,
>
> I *think* we may be down in the weeds at this point.
>
> Do you think we need to resolve this question before we launch a WG? Or
> can we ask the WG to make the determination based
> on what they perceive is necessary for interoperability?
>
> Ian
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>