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

Re: Organize a chat on account/ledger capabilities?

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:04:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_Jnr11bsHvp1Z9bYg5baQG26VCRUG82WgzSeqUfugrZaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Anderson <eanders@pobox.com>
Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
>> Good points but I think fundamentally the W3C has evolved in a world
>> where developer-centric processes are favoured and ISO favours large
>> organisations and governments.
> Adrian, you are not correct here.

I'm not sure what part of the statement above you are referring to?

> W3C has fast track status with ISO.

What does that mean?

We have a liaison for ISO12812 but that in of itself is problematic because
the standard is focused on mobile and the Web (the platform that the W3C
stewards) is hardware agnostic.

Certainly it would behoove us to have a better grasp of ISO20022 as we
begin to define our vocabulary within the WP WG (and I hope Kris and others
will be able to help here) but I'm not sure if anyone has clearly defined
what the relationship will be (if any) between recommendations from the Web
Payments IG (and subsequent WGs) and ISO specifications. Will there be a
dependency, an informative reference?

Are there ISO standards that have been referenced by W3C standards in the
past or visa versa? I don't think there is a precedent here.

> W3C standards are dual and triple published depending on the target
> audience. If financial services adoption is required it will be dual/triple
> published. This process isnt broken, it works for the intended targeted
> audiences.
Correct, but this REC track requires that the standard is reflected in
existing implementations which is fundamentally different to ISO. In my
opinion this makes the W3C "developer-focused" as the requirements for a
standard to mature through the various publishing stages is that it
developers have already implemented it.

Also note that the W3C publishes recommendation, not specifications. Nobody
has any obligation to implement them in part or in full. The same can not
be said for ISO which often has regulatory mandates tied to it's standards
in specific jurisdictions.

Fundamentally, the goals of the two organizations are not exactly the same
so it follows that their processes will differ.

> As for ISO 20022, it is a 98% open standard. The purchased ISO 20022 has
> far less usable content. IMO, the published ISO 20022 chapters is pure
> filler and business process content. Everything required to implement ISO
> 20022 is open and free to all.

Correct again, as I said to Kris, ISO 20022 is the exception. Kris asked
about W3C vs ISO (not just ISO 20022). As you and I and David discovered
earlier this year getting a data dictionary out of the freely available
content for ISO20022 was not as easy as we'd hoped it would be.

My contention is that our standards may be at a level of abstraction above
ISO20022 so the only value we will get from the standard is re-use of it's
vocabulary to populate ours. If we can't even get a data dictionary then
where do we go next?

> ISO serves a very valuable role.

+1 - As I said, both orgs have their place. For the Web, I see open
standards and the W3C process as superior.

> Erik Anderson
> Bloomberg
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 16:04:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:44 UTC