W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Promise App

From: Kenneth Griffith <kengriffith@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:37:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CANF+cBawVs7JMrzwxwxDtYWEBjForEiL7vz124FydroVd4E6iA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>
Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>, Michiel de Jong <michiel@ripple.com>
Roger,  a complete contract usually has two transactions, though only one
side is necessarily money. The other side is whatever the person is paying
for. This could be goods, services, land title, etc.

On Apr 18, 2017 12:31, "Roger Bass" <roger@traxiant.com> wrote:

> How is this notion different from the standard approach of a payment
> including remittance detail, which refers / links back to other documents
> (typically one or more invoices, but potentially also a PO or agreement),
> which in turn relate to the contract? Or specifically, how would the
> payment content / standard differ in such a scenario where the "full
> contract" *is* described?
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Andrew Bransford Brown <
> andrewbb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I concur and can participate in a new group defining contract terminology
>> and structure.  All transactions are contracts and payments only describe
>> the delivery of one side.
>>
>> In my opinion, that leads to complexity in describing the payment,
>> because the full contract isn't described.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <
>> adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Maybe it's worth creating a separate mailing list that discusses
>>> topics more around 'Conversations for Action' (promises, offers, etc.), and
>>> keep this mailing list strictly about Interledger?
>>>
>>> Not a bad idea. I am surprised by the lack of coherence around standards
>>> for "smart contracts" and this probably fits in that category. Do any of
>>> the other W3C folk on this list know of any CGs addressing this kind of
>>> thing?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 April 2017 at 10:58, Michiel de Jong <michiel@ripple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your post - I totally agree with you that it's important to
>>>> understand the terminology around 'promise', 'want', 'offer', 'terms', and
>>>> 'counter' that lead up to a payment.
>>>>
>>>> However, this community group was created for discussing Interledger,
>>>> and its scope is therefore limited to payments, and the ledger transfers
>>>> involved in making these payments work across ledgers (hence the name
>>>> "inter"-"ledger").
>>>>
>>>> 'Why' a payment occurs, 'how' the two parties agreed on the payment
>>>> amount, 'what' service or goods the payment is for, and even whether it's
>>>> an up-front payment (creating a debt) or an afterwards payment (resolving a
>>>> debt), is out of scope.
>>>>
>>>> I recently added a glossary to the RFCs repo, which might be of
>>>> interest: https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/00
>>>> 19-glossary/0019-glossary.md
>>>> <https://github..com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0019-glossary/0019-glossary.md>
>>>> - as you can see, it only discusses terminology surrounding Interledger
>>>> payments.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think Interledger should describe more than just payments?
>>>> Personally, I think it would make the scope to broad.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's worth creating a separate mailing list that discusses topics
>>>> more around 'Conversations for Action' (promises, offers, etc.), and keep
>>>> this mailing list strictly about Interledger?
>>>>
>>>> What do others think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Michiel.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Andrew Bransford Brown <
>>>> andrewbb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Understanding adversarial contract disputes and resolution:
>>>>> http://34.208.7.206/ContractsPage.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 16:37:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 April 2017 16:37:59 UTC