W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > June 2016

Re: comments on web payment HTTP API and core message components

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 23:06:06 -0400
To: public-payments-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5764BA9E.1060008@digitalbazaar.com>
Hi Vincent,

Apologies for the long delay in responding, we were waiting for the
Browser API to settle before working on the core messages and HTTP API
again. Responses to your feedback on the spec below:

On 05/04/2016 06:12 AM, KUNTZ Vincent wrote:
> -          *Core components: *
> 
> o   the level of granularity is not the same as the core components 
> defined is ISO 20022 – core components described in the proposal are
> the basic data types used in ISO 20022, such as amounts.

I have changed the "Supporting Components" title to "Supporting Datatypes":

https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-core-messages/#supporting-datatypes

Does that address at least a part of your concern? Keep in mind that
we're probably not going to be able to align 100% with ISO20022, but we
don't want to re-invent things we don't need to either.

One of the challenges I think we're going to have, as you've probably
noticed already, is that the level of specification at W3C is far more
technically involved than ISO20022.

> Core components in payments in ISO 20022 are more at the level of  a
> party, an organisation, a financial institution, a mandate, an
> authorisation, or a financial instruments. Those core components are
> then composed of the elements required in a classical payments chain,
> e.g. for a party, the name, the address, the identification (which
> themselves are also core components). Those core components are
> directly derived from the Business Components, which are defined to
> described the ISO 20022 business flows.

Good to know, Vincent, thank you. I don't understand how you'd like me
to translate this information into specification changes. Any concrete
change ideas?

> o   ISO 20022 makes a clear difference between the logical layer,
> which defines the “what” in the implementation from the technical
> layer, which is the “how”: xml, Jason – I would suggest that in the
> w3c specifications we keep the same separation.

The Core Messages specification attempts to make that same separation.
The "what" being the Data Model (Core Messages):

https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-core-messages/#core-messages

...and the "how" being the "Expressing as..." sections:

https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-core-messages/#expressing-messages-as-json

> This would actually allow to define the “what” (the core components)
> in a generic way and leave the actual technical implementation up to
> the providers.

The goal is to define the core components in a generic way.

However, W3C rarely leaves technical implementation (as far as
algorithms and data formats) up to providers. That tends to lead to
interoperability issues and vendor lock-in problems. Toward the end of
the W3C Process, we have to demonstrate technical interoperability and
to do that, we have to specify the "how". Any feature that cannot
demonstrate interoperability is typically marked as "at risk" and is
removed from the specification before being finalized.

> For the purpose of the ISO 20022 harmonisation, I personally believe 
> that the proposal goes into the right direction, if the document is 
> extended and  comments are taken on-board, and it should be taken up
> by the working group.

Great, and thank you, Vincent.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
JSON-LD Best Practice: Context Caching
https://manu.sporny.org/2016/json-ld-context-caching/
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2016 03:06:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:43:17 UTC