Re: [use cases] Use Cases FPWD ready for Call for Consensus

On 04/09/2015 05:32 PM, wrote:
> Our use cases show also that our scope goes beyond the browser. I 
> would rather leave the above statement as-is rather than complicate 
> it. However, I think it’s fine to add a new sentence. Do you have
> one to propose? It seems you want to address “offline” whereas I
> thought you might want to include “native mobile apps."
> Proposed sentence: With the advent of Web APIs in local transactions
>  on the same device or through communication paths like NFC or 
> Bluetooth, offline and convergent use cases across different 
> communication means will be covered to some degree.

I attempted to synthesize what both you and Ian wanted while keeping the
language approachable:

> I don’t interpret that as saying we expect payment instrument to 
> equal wallet. Rather, I think we are avoiding referring to digital 
> wallets or payment agents since that is the architecture that is the 
> consequence of the use cases. Payment services exist (to the use 
> cases) but digital wallets don’t yet (they come later as a 
> solution).
> JH> Yes, the wallet comes into play in the beginning (Discovery) but 
> not later on. I understand the point about different abstraction 
> levels - but will readers be able to cope with this? I doubt it. It 
> would be easier to understand if we said ' It is important to ensure 
> that the payment services presented to them are consistent across 
> wallets, even if they are on different devices.' I would put 
> readability above academic abstraction in this case. (Although I 
> hardly ever do in my own writing - so, no objection actually, if you 
> want to leave it as it is.)

Agree with Joerg, the language was too abstract and confusing. Applied
most of your language, Joerg:

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments

Received on Saturday, 11 April 2015 21:43:31 UTC