- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:15:21 -0400
- To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKcXiSr57t4dnbfUsCHvYDDdpmJcHCgzcNdzsv_dO=D-zhdBdA@mail.gmail.com>
RE: "I would be cautious about bringing in UBL; it is a very complex animal" Agreed! But that's because when the 'biochemistry' of e-commerce needs to be (a) computationally structured; (b) un-restrictive of market freedoms; (c) compliant with a hodgepodge of evolving laws across a matrix of jurisdictions, it's an awfully tall order! I added the following comment just now to the margin of "Web Payments Capabilities" draft, and hope I'll be forgiven for reposting it here. But it provides a pragmatic example: "Here is a better link which is to the UBL Invoice only. (All of UBL is rather large.) http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/UBL-2.1.html#T-INVOICE ... this gets you not only into the specification, but right to the links to the artefacts and summary report. (Acknowledgment to Ken Holman for that guidance.)" Joseph Potvin On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Anders Rundgren < anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2015-05-22 16:34, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote: > >> Joseph, >> >> I think we do need to ensure we don't re-invent the wheel here. (Thanks >> for explaining what the Past-the-puck Task Force will do, I was still at a >> loss). >> > > I would be cautious about bringing in UBL; it is a very complex animal > designed for machine-interpretation. > > Anders > > >> I agree that we need to have a list of existing external standards that >> we should be leveraging and I'm not sure where that should live or be >> referenced. >> >> I am hearing comments along the lines of "as an IG we don't have >> normative references" but I think we do need a way to pass on >> recommendations from the IG to the various WGs of which existing standards >> to use and what parts of these. >> >> I think this is worth a discussion on the next IG call. >> >> Adrian >> >> On 22 May 2015 at 15:58, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca <mailto: >> jpotvin@opman.ca>> wrote: >> >> 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 <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca> >> Mobile: 819-593-5983 <tel:819-593-5983> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org <mailto: >> ij@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> >> > On May 22, 2015, at 12:27 AM, <E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl >> <mailto:E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl>> <E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl <mailto: >> 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 <mailto:ij@w3.org>> >> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >> Tel: +1 718 260 9447 <tel:%2B1%20718%20260%209447> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> > -- Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca Mobile: 819-593-5983
Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 15:16:11 UTC