W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Linking Value Networks

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 22:24:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_LoV5c-kS051SfpMHsEg0jiH3HJ2aikeifa5BTjX_CRVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Cc: Dan Schutzer <cyberdan250@gmail.com>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Hi Joseph,

The UBL is definitely something we need to consider in the interactions we
are proposing between our payment agents. Thanks for putting it on the
radar!

Adrian



On 8 May 2015 at 04:34, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> RE: "requires more than just a technical solution, it requires some
> business innovation"
>
> The answer is:
>
> OASIS UBL v2.1 Universal Business Language
> https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/
> http://ubl.xml.org/wiki/ubl-resources
> ...which is currently advancing as ISO 19845
> http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66370
> See also:
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/UBL-Governance/v1.0/cn01/UBL-Governance-v1.0-cn01.html
> ...and for a couple of examples regarding its significance:
>
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0771&from=EN
>
> http://eeiplatform.com/13559/towards-single-standard-e-invoicing-eu-public-procurement-6-years-wow/
>
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Dan Schutzer <cyberdan250@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You make a good point - but to address this concern it requires more than
>> just a technical solution, it requires some business innovation, but it can
>> be addressed much in the same way that Square and PayPal can helped in
>> areas where the payee is too small and not credit worthy enough to directly
>> accept credit card payments.
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In working on the manifesto and the architecture document it occurred to
>>> me that we (or maybe it's just me) may be missing an essential feature in
>>> the payment agent model.
>>>
>>> If our payment agents are expected to talk to one another to negotiate
>>> the terms of a payment, including the choice of payment scheme, then what
>>> do we do when there is no common scheme between the participants?
>>>
>>> Does the payment agent give up and say: "Sorry Alice, you can't pay Bob
>>> he only accepts Visa, Bitcoin and ACH and you can only pay via MasterCard
>>> and XRP, transaction aborted"?
>>>
>>> If so then it seems we aren't solving anything. Our vision for
>>> inter-connected value networks falls flat if our payment agents can only
>>> facilitate a payment within existing closed networks.
>>>
>>> Would I be correct in saying we need to consider that in many scenarios
>>> there will be one or more intermediaries that "bridge" the two networks by
>>> being plugged into both? How do we fit these brokers/intermediaries into
>>> our architecture?
>>>
>>> I think they are also payment agents of some sort but who do they
>>> interface with? The sender, receiver, both? And, how does the payment flow
>>> between Alice and Bob play out when this intermediary is required? At what
>>> point do their agents say, "Oh dear, we don't have a common payment scheme
>>> we can use, let's call Fred to act as a broker between your MasterCard and
>>> my Visa accounts".
>>>
>>> I'd like to discuss this on the call today as I think we need to figure
>>> it out and put it in the document.
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 20:25:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:35 UTC