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

Re: [glossary] External data dictionary reference requirements

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 09:58:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSry_MDg3DsN0oSnFFRAUaSvy1KLwaUCBjdkT6aOpV9Z_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Ah, exactly the sort of list I had in mind, thanks.
http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison

RE: "We should evaluate each reference and determine whether it advances
our work. There may be different reasons to choose a reference (e.g., we
might want to refer to a widely accepted de jure standard in one place, or
an emerging specification from a de facto group that clearly has broad
adoption in another)."

Agreed, that's what I meant.

With a "WPIG Liaisons Task Force" (which I referred to last week as a
"Past-the-Puck Task Force"), the community can make a pro-active effort to
avoid:
(a) ad hoc cherry-picking this field here and that field there from amongst
overlapping standards & quasi-standards, which would surely lead to
semantic dissonance in our own data model
(b) inadvertent divergence from the structure and sematics of well-reviewed
standards & quasi-standards due to gaps in liaison with other standards
bodies
(c) getting accidentally caught up in un-reconciled redundancies amongst
other standards bodies. For example the W3C Liaison list include both OASIS
and UN/CEFACT, the former which hosts UBL, the latter which hosts ebXML.
UN/CEFACT Core Components (CC) provide naming rules and data types. UBL is
based on UN/CEFACT-CC, and provides a Business Information Entities
(address, payment) structured into specific document schemas (e.g. order,
invoice) with XML. But there's some redundancy and competition about where
one ends and the other begins. The WPIG ought to delineate its particular
areas of reliance on one and the other to avoid the problem of (a) above.

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983





On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> > On May 22, 2015, at 12:27 AM, <E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl> <
> E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Joseph,
> >
> > Thanks for the input on the Glossary page.
> >
> > I have two questions:
> >
> > 1.  “existing standards bodies recognized by the W3C”
> > Are there specific standards bodies FORMALLY recognized by the W3C?
> >We should evaluate each reference and determine whether it advances our
> work. There may be
> different reasons to choose a reference (e.g., we might want to refer to a
> widely accepted de jure standard in
> one place, or an emerging specification from a de facto group that clearly
> has broad adoption in another).
> > If so, could you point me to a reference to such a  list?
> > (and I will then go look into that to see whether the standards from
> payments such as EMV and PCI are listed there)
> > If not, I would suggest to strike the wording "formally recognized by
> the W3C”
>
> +1 to striking that. We should evaluate each reference and determine
> whether it advances our work. There may be
> different reasons to choose a reference (e.g., we might want to refer to a
> widely accepted de jure standard in
> one place, or an emerging specification from a de facto group that clearly
> has broad adoption in another).
>
> I would think of “Recognized by W3C” as something demonstrated after we
> create a reference rather than something
> a priori that constrains how we choose references.
>
> Ian
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>


--
Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 13:59:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:36 UTC