- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:05:57 -0400
- To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
On 10/01/2015 01:00 PM, David Ezell wrote: > Early in the life of the IG, we knew we did not want to unnecessarily > reinvent[1] the wheel with regard to message content. +1 > Using the semantics (not syntax) of ISO20022 is one way we might help > fulfill that goal. I'm worried that the messages presented are not > easily understood as trying to reuse the semantics. Is it indeed the > messages, and not the API, that don't seem aligned? The ISO20022 payment request that was listed here is a syntactically valid ISO20022 payment request (I took the example directly from the ISO20022 example message catalog): https://web-payments.org/specs/source/web-payments-messaging/#iso20022-request The ISO20022 bits are expressed in JSON, converted using a deterministic XML2JSON conversion tool. Converting back creates the properly formatted ISO20022 XML message. So, while we could just re-use the semantics for ISO20022, the example provided above goes a step further and re-uses a syntax that can be losslessly converted from ISO20022 to JSON and back again. I'm not proposing that this is the right direction to take, nor that it'll work in all cases. I'm merely suggesting that it seems like something promising that we should explore once the Web Payments WG fires up. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
Received on Monday, 5 October 2015 00:06:26 UTC