Re: Multiple Wallets

RE: "being a depository and a repository - in our eyes is the capability to
process requests for certain types of transactions and delegate them to the
respective services as the user choses (or has them pre-configured)"

Joerg,

That is precisely what is intended by including the word "algorithm" in "a
'repository' for persistent storage of enduring integral artifacts (e.g.
payment method *algorithms*, receipts, coupons, credentials, etc.)".

Perhaps it could be more explicitly worded, or if necessary elaborated.

Basically, to relate this proposed working definition of an e-wallet to a
physical wallet:

* It is a "depository" for the temporary storage of information in the form
of authorized scalar units of money (as either tokens and/or scalar values
in a registry)
=
* It's where I put my money

...and also:

* It is a "repository" for persistent storage of enduring integral
artifacts (e.g. payment method algorithms, receipts, coupons, credentials,
etc.)
=
* It's where put my credit cards, debit cards, driver's license, transit
pass, café card, etc.

Does this address what you have in mind?

Joseph Potvin
On behalf of DataKinetics http://www.dkl.com
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:49 AM, <Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Another aspect - besides being a depository and a repository - in our eyes
> is the capability to process requests for certain types of transactions and
> delegate them to the respective services as the user choses (or has them
> pre-configured).
>
> We need to be aware of the fact that, while several approaches we see
> today claim to be 'wallets', their inventors have no fundament to make
> their product as 'neutral' wrt/ payment instruments as my leather wallet
> is, because there are no such neutral transaction protocols available
> (yet). It is the lack of what we aim to accomplish, that blurs the word
> 'wallet' and the semantics associated.
>
> I think that our work represents a good example for a wallet that governs
> the overall transaction but leaves the implementation for a specific
> instrument open. However, we can do so because we have an R&D prototype not
> a product. Every product meant to succeed in the market and eventually earn
> money, will have to do proprietary stuff and tie things together.
>
> I believe it's our job, to do the respective disentanglement and come up
> with specifications that are needed to allow 'Wallets' according to our
> definition to come into life.
>
> Cheers,
>         Jörg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Potvin [mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca]
> Sent: Samstag, 1. August 2015 13:47
> To: Web Payments IG
> Subject: Re: Multiple Wallets
>
> RE: "I think it's clear that nobody is talking about the same thing here
> :)  I think the term "wallet" and "payment instrument" will only make sense
> in the context of a particular concrete proposal."
>
> Given the prominence of the "wallet" concept in the Charter, and given the
> IG's decision that the Charter will not include work towards
> standardization of an electronic wallet specification, and yet given the
> absence of any working definiition of electronic wallet in this or any
> other reference document, this topic promises to be an inevitable source of
> lasting debate.
>
> In work underway at DataKinetics on a free/libre/open source module to
> enhance any e-invoice, we required a sufficiently generic and yet
> semantically specific working definition of any e-wallet so that the
> requirements for information exchanged between the two could be specified.
> I suggest the same is required for the other side of the e-wallet, which is
> any e-payment system.
>
> A week ago I offered the following suggestion. I hope it will be okay to
> repeat myself, as I didn't see any replies on its substance...
>
> ***
> 1. On the topic of wallets:
>
> SUGGESTION: There was considerable discussion on this list about whether
> or not the term "wallet" was helpful or confusing. It appears there's a
> preference to keep it. Let me therefore suggest the following concise
> functional definition summarizing our approach at
> DataKinetics:
>
> An e-wallet has two general functions:
> * It is a "depository" for the temporary storage of information in the
> form of authorized scalar units of money (as either tokens and/or scalar
> values in a registry)
> * It is a "repository" for persistent storage of enduring integral
> artifacts (e.g. payment method algorithms, receipts, coupons, credentials,
> etc.)
>
> ***
>
> In the above, we are attempting to align with the WG IV (e-Commerce) of
> the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). This
> top-level global legal standards body distinguishes two systems for the
> management of electronic transferable records (their most generic term):
> “registry-based” and “token-based”. A registry contains information about
> the electronic transferable records including “the identification of a sole
> owner of the record and of the rights incorporated in that record at any
> time”. In contrast, a token is an original and unique record, with which a
> transfer of rights is accomplished through transfer of control over the
> record itself. A token-based system for electronic payments is similar in
> its basic procedures to a paper-based payments system.
> (UNCITRAL, 2012, p. 7) A registry-based payments system implements control
> via the management of verifiable unique identities; a token-based payments
> system implements control via the management of verifiable unique tokens.
>
> Source: UNCITRAL. (2012). Legal issues relating to the use of electronic
> transferable records (Version dated 17 August 2012). United Nations
> Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Working Group IV
> (Electronic Commerce). Forty-sixth Session, Vienna, 29
> October-2 November 2012. United Nations General Assembly
> (A/CN.9/WG.IV/WP.118). Retrieved from
> https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/workinggroups/wg_4/WG4-WP_118_e.pdf
>
>
>
> Joseph Potvin
> On behalf of DataKinetics http://www.dkl.com Operations Manager |
> Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Brett Wilson <brettw@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> is anybody share the latest link of glossary for wallet, payment
> scheme, payment instrument?
> >>
> >> in the user's view of payment instrument, for example, credit card is
> >> one of payment instrument.
> >> google wallet(or apple pay) is the container of payment
> >> instruments(credit card and/or more)
> >>
> >> I thought that the container is the wallet.
> >>
> >> to process credit card payment, users may choose google wallet(or apple
> pay..) when merchant accept it.
> >
> >
> > OK, I think it's clear that nobody is talking about the same thing
> > here :)
> >
> > I think the term "wallet" and "payment instrument" will only make sense
> in the context of a particular concrete proposal. Right now things are too
> ambiguous for any consensus. I am going to stop worrying about this.
> >
> > Brett
>
>