Re: Update on Web Payments Working Group [The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern]

RE: "if W3C is not the answer for this"

The Web is the optimal layer for standardization of some *but not all*
aspects of Web-mediated payment. Therefore this current schism may be a
blessing in disguise, if this turns out to be a useful bifucation point at
which the excellent integrated work that's been done to date is critically
assessed to determine which open standards and open quasi-standards bodies
may be the optimal ones to migrate certain elements to. The the community
can build upon many existing partnerships amongst open standards bodies.

I've forwarded below a message I originally sent a year ago relating to
working relationships between W3C and other standards bodies, and amongst
varous other standards bodies.  Maybe this, just in terms of the way of
thinking suggested here, might lead to some ideas in response to: "Now
what?"

*---------- Forwarded message ----------*
*From: Joseph Potvin* <jpotvin@opman.ca>
*Date: Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:55 AM*
*Subject: Re: [glossary] External data dictionary reference requirements*
*To: E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl <E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl>, Web Payments CG
<public-webpayments@w3.org <public-webpayments@w3.org>>, Web Payments IG
<public-webpayments-ig@w3.org <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>>*



*RE: Are there specific standards bodies FORMALLY recognized by the W3C?*
















*Hmm, in fact I was hoping there were but I don't know.In domains like
payments and e-commerce, any Venn diagram of the relevant deep-rooted
standards bodies will look like the overlapping circles of the Olympic
logo. So formal liaisons seem to me indispensible to facilitate dedicated
efforts to map the structure, semantics & syntax.  Ideally the sort of
formal recognition I had in mind for this IG would be like these
examples:W3C & OASIS
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/01/w3c-oasis-cgm-final-051215.pdf
<http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/01/w3c-oasis-cgm-final-051215.pdf>W3C &
OMA http://www.w3.org/2004/05/W3C-OMA-Agreement-FINAL.html
<http://www.w3.org/2004/05/W3C-OMA-Agreement-FINAL.html>W3C & VoiceXML
Forum http://www.w3.org/2001/10/MOU.txt
<http://www.w3.org/2001/10/MOU.txt>Here also are some non-W3C examples:*
IEC, ISO, ITU &
UN/ECEhttp://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ebusiness/Pages/mou/MoUMG-members.aspx
<http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ebusiness/Pages/mou/MoUMG-members.aspx>* ISO &
IEChttp://www.iso.org/iso/jtc1_home.html
<http://www.iso.org/iso/jtc1_home.html>* IETF &
ITUhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6756 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6756>*
IETF & IEEE 802 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc4441rev-08
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc4441rev-08>*




*RE: I am not sure if it is right to label this as the PRIMARY default
external source.*




*This IG has correctly identified ISO 20022 as the primary default external
standard for the exchange of financial information. In a nutshell, my
recommendation is for this W3C initiative to equivalently reference both
ISO 20022 and ISO 19845 (i.e. UBL
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66370
<http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66370>  due for final
vote next month).SWIFT brought uniformity to the financial info for 20022,
but things aren't quite as elegant in the realm of e-commerce standards.
Rather than a nice orderly Olympic logo sort of Venn Diagram, it's more
like scribbled circles, with the result that there's been considerable
confusion about which standards bodies cover what aspects. Here's a (2011)
effort by OASIS/UBL Co-Chair Ken Holman to situate these various
circles:http://eeiplatform.com/4701/why-consider-cii-or-sepa-with-the-advent-of-ubl-2-1/
<http://eeiplatform.com/4701/why-consider-cii-or-sepa-with-the-advent-of-ubl-2-1/>*

*Original source: http://ubl.xml.org/book/export/html/234
<http://ubl.xml.org/book/export/html/234>*



*Things have advanced in the subsequent 4 years, and based on what I see, I
recommend that UBL be given the same status as 20022 in this IG's work,
acknowledging that there are likely a few aspects where they overlap an
must be reconciled. *

*This also means that anything which shows up in this W3C IG/GC work as "in
scope", and which is already addressed in those other standards (ditto for
others that I've not mentioned here), should be pointed at, not re-created
or re-stated.*





*Joseph PotvinOperations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérationsThe Opman
Company | La compagnie Opmanjpotvin@opman.ca <jpotvin@opman.ca>Mobile:
819-593-5983 <819-593-5983>*




On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 4 April 2016 at 22:02, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>   C. The real question is: can Credentials be solved in an open-standard
>>> way, thereby creating a playing field on which an open Web Payments
>>> standard can flourish?
>>
>>
>> I have not introduced myself yet, as my firm's membership (Blockstream)
>> has been approved for W3C but has not been activated pending paperwork.
>>
>
> Welcome!  Anyone is welcome to participate in community groups.  Being a
> paid member will also give you access to working groups.  Ive been excited
> by blockstream work for some time, and am working on payment channels too.
>
>
>>
>> However, I want to be clear that the interest from my firm, and in
>> general from the blockchain and bitcoin community that we represent, is
>> around verified credentials that supports decentralized identity, private
>> channels, and selective disclosure/blinding/non-correlation of identifiers
>> and attributes. This is the main reason why we are joining W3C.
>>
>
> This is a great use case, and one that is well aligned with web standard
> IMHO.  I am also personally working on these use cases, and feel that W3C
> standards represent an unparalleled solution.
>
>
>>
>> We are planning to make substantial contributions of open source code and
>> cryptographic develop effort in these areas over the next year (which is
>> part of why I'm involved with http://ID2020Summit.org at the UN) and
>> desire this to be part of an open process.
>>
>
> Awesome!
>
>
>> But if W3C is not the answer for this, we'll move our efforts elsewhere.
>>
>
> The W3C isnt a magic bullet.  It produces web based specifications,
> normally or a high quality in terms of extensibility and interop.  The
> specs can sometimes be hard to read and over a number of documents.  And
> some use cases require putting pieces together like lego, but I think the
> foundation is largely sound.  Teasing out the right answers from various
> specs and putting them together into a technical solution takes a bit of
> skill, I think, but also is a lot of fun.
>
> Every company has to make their bets, but Im not sure what alternatives
> you'd look at.  There's many opportunities to make bad bets in this area.
> Do you have any particular concerns?
>
> Great to have you participating, I'd love over time to try and test
> interoperability (especially if you've selected javascript for a language).
>
>
>>
>> -- Christopher Allen
>>
>>
>