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

Re: Promise App

From: Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:45:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPS+YFKSR_LKCGS+T7AcsORLeWkWSW6rjSyAg3YB1SfK_5PPpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>
Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Michiel de Jong <michiel@ripple.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
There is also a difference of receipt-based vs. event-based.  Event-based
stores the process of contract formation, negotiation, and delivery, etc.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:28 PM, 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 16:46:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 April 2017 16:46:17 UTC