On references from W3C specifications and how we can help a future Working Group

Hi Web Payments Interest Group,

I hope with this email to answer some questions percolating on our list.

Ian

============================================
Q. Does W3C ever seek alignment with other technologies or reference them from within W3C specifications?

A. Yes, of course. Working Groups have the responsibility of choosing technology references in pursuit of interoperability, within the scope of their charter.

    The Interest Group should inform the work of the future WG, but not over-constrain them. To that end, I have proposed that the liaisons task force create a catalog of the
    specifications the Task Force believes are the most relevant to our work. David Ezell has agreed to an action item to start such a catalog [1].
    That catalog will be useful as a reference for future discussions with Working Groups.

    [1] https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/actions/88

============================================
Q. What is W3C’s policy around references?

A. References are reviewed by the community as part of the W3C Process. We seek review in particular from organizations named as “Dependencies” in a Working Group’s
     charter.

    At document transitions in the W3C Process, the Director reviews references and comments on those references according to these considerations:

    Normative References
    http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references

============================================
Q. Can a W3C specification include a normative reference to an ISO specification?

A. I am aware of no rule that forbids references to ISO specifications. So a Working Group could propose one and it will be reviewed by the Director on the merits.

============================================
Q. Should the Web Payments Interest Group propose that a future Payments Working Group to include a normative reference to a particular ISO specification?

A. Please note the word “propose.” The Interest Group is drafting a charter that (we hope) captures what the Interest Group believes is useful and
    necessary to achieve interoperability. The W3C Membership will review the charter and may recommend changes to the provisions, or object to certain provisions.
    W3C will seek consensus on the charter scope before launching the group.

    In theory, therefore, the Interest Group could propose any number of requirements in the draft charter, and seek Membership feedback and consensus.

    However, I believe should not include any requirement for a specific reference in the Working Group’s charter. I believe it would be premature
    and unnecessarily constrain the group. People who want to drive the ultimate decision should join that Working Group.

    More appropriate and helpful would be to be sure to include as dependencies in the charter the names of all the organizations where we believe
    alignment is important to interoperability. Discussions will give us the flexibility necessary to make the best choice when the specification is being
    written. Let’s not hard-code a constraint where we don’t need to.

    Today’s draft charter [1] includes these names: GSMA, IETF, ISO TC 68, SWIFT, X9. Who is missing from the list?

    [1] https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Roadmap/PaymentArchitectureWG

============================================
Q. So what materials will we be providing the future Working Group?

A. We will want to deliver:

    - The vision document
      https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision
    - The charter
    - The use cases document; they ground the charter.
    - The capabilities document; we are investing time with key stakeholders to consider architecture and that will help the Working Group get up to speed quickly.
    - A list of requirements; these are technical or other requirements derived from the use cases. Some of them appear as annotations today in the use cases document,
      and there are further notes in the capabilities document. These should be distilled by the IG over the next few months into a crisp set of considerations
      for future groups (not just the payments WG but also the authentication WGs that we expect to charter, and any other relevant group).
    - A list of useful references to work of other bodies that the Working Group should be taking into account (cf action 88).

   There may be other materials we wish to deliver as well.

   The first high-bandwidth opportunity to transfer knowledge will be face-to-face during TPAC 2015.


--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447