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 13:40:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPS+YFJn0dXe0q0zWnF7fzz2Liy_2Vxoiz8NwOpiNUC=USvknQ@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>
In the Promise App example:  http://34.208.7.206/ContractsPage.aspx each
event is recorded and code can be executed, creating a 'smart contract'.

The granularity works for currency, stock, and bond trading as well the
grocery store and everything in between.

Open contracts form a live exchange.  Completed contracts form an audit
trail and reputation.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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 17:40:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 April 2017 17:40:57 UTC