- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 12:33:15 -0400
- To: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-webpaymentsigcharter <public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org>
+1 here too, assuming what that means is to park some terminology/concept matters, but give them a process and a timeline. RE: "That said, the W3C's mandate is to create technology solutions for real world problems. Two corrections for the record (which you're aware of already, I know) 1. W3C's mandate is to create specifications for interoperable technology solutions 2. All of the stakeholder organizations listed in the draft charter are oriented towards real world problems. -- Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca Mobile: 819-593-5983 On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote: > +1 to Manu. In all cases, and this was mentioned in a couple of comments, > the IG should work on a common terminology, and this is not something we are > going to solve now. I will add this in the new version of the charter. > > best > steph > > Le 03/06/2014 17:56, Manu Sporny a écrit : >> >> On 05/30/2014 12:44 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >>> >>> Manu, An audience hierarchy as you suggest would be a terrible way >>> to go, and I think you haven't considered the implications. >> >> >> I didn't mean to suggest that we rate them from 1 to 10, put the lawyers >> at a 1, and don't pay any attention to them. Quite the contrary, all of >> those parties I listed are important and should be taken into account >> when figuring out messaging/terminology. >> >> That said, the W3C's mandate is to create technology solutions for real >> world problems. Terminology is important. When it comes to picking that >> terminology, we should make sure not to pick terminology that might >> confuse the group creating that technology, even if the lawyers have >> picked some terminology that works well for them. :) >> >> All Tobie and I are saying is: The terminology you're proposing is >> confusing to us, and if it's confusing to us, it will probably be >> confusing to the other technologists working on the problem. While >> you've solved the problem for UNCITRAL, you've made the problem worse >> for the technologists. Here are some of the terms we've identified as >> being problematic: >> >> * Digital wallet >> * Electronic Token >> * Tokenization >> * Identity >> * Verified / Validated >> * Account >> >> Here are the types of "electronic tokens" that pop into technologists' >> heads when you mention the term: session ID, OAuth token, browser >> cookie, hashed value, bearer token, credential, Bitcoin, JSON Web token, >> 2-factor authentication token, one-time password, ... I think you get >> the point - the terminology is so generic it's not useful (to >> technologists). >> >> We're just going to have to think through those issues, and I doubt >> we'll figure out the correct terminology before the charter goes to the >> AC for a vote. >> >> To be clear - I'm not disagreeing with you. Terminology is important. :) >> >> Your proposal for the particular usage of "electronic token" as defined >> by UNCITRAL is problematic. That shouldn't stop us - let's note it and >> move on to something we can get consensus on. :) >> >> -- manu >> > > -- > Stephane Boyera stephane@w3.org > W3C +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27 > BP 93 > F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, > France
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 16:34:02 UTC