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 18:05:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_Jkys6p2cU6rgC+LpBpbOWJkO8-8A4NMYbxMKnZ24+tTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: KETELS Kris <Kris.KETELS@swift.com>
Cc: Evert Fekkes <E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@ripple.com>, Kepeng Li <kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com>, "Adler, Patrick" <patrick.adler@chi.frb.org>, VIGNET cyril <Cyril.VIGNET@bpce.fr>, "j.j.spaanderman@dnb.nl" <j.j.spaanderman@dnb.nl>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
On 3 September 2015 at 17:36, KETELS Kris <Kris.KETELS@swift.com> wrote:

> Dear Adrian, dear Evert,
>
>
>
> Building on this: at this stage, ISO 20022 only supports XML and ASN.1.
> The standard however was designed to be extensible for other syntaxes if
> need be. For this reason,  as we speak, ISO 20022 is looking into extending
> the ISO 20022 specification to support API’s and as such, also JSON which
> is becoming the predominant syntax for API’s.
>
> The goal being that from a single logical model, it should be possible to
> generate for example both an XML message and its JSON equivalent.
>

Great! For better or worse JSON is the serialisation that has become
ubiquitous on the Web.


>
>
> Maybe some more things on ISO 20022 itself: it is correct the
> specification itself is payable (i.e. the metamodel, the transformation
> rules to XML, the modelling guidelines etc...) but the actual Message
> Definitions are free of charge and can be downloaded from the ISO 20022
> website (http://www.iso20022.org/). There you will also be able to obtain
> an electronic version of the repository which for example contains the data
> dictionary describing all of the business and message concepts used in ISO
> 20022).
>
>
>

We couldn't get this right a few months back so perhaps with your help we
can resolve that.


>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Kris
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adrian Hope-Bailie [mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com]
> *Sent:* 03 September 2015 14:20
> *To:* Evert Fekkes
> *Cc:* Adrian Hope-Bailie; KETELS Kris; Kepeng Li; Adler, Patrick; VIGNET
> cyril; j.j.spaanderman@dnb.nl; Web Payments IG; Ian Jacobs
>
> *Subject:* Re: Organize a chat on account/ledger capabilities?
>
>
>
> Hi Evert,
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On 3 September 2015 at 08:49, <E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl> wrote:
>
> Hello Adrian,
>
>
>
> Well worded response, of which I recognize quite a lot.
>
> Some comments, though:
>
>
>
> ·         ISO standards must be paid for, but do you think the cost is
> prohibitive?
> I think ISO has a different business model as W3C, but for ISO my
> organization does not have to pay a (substantial) membership fee.
>
> I do. The majority of W3C standards I look at I do so as part of my
> research. Only quite far into the process would I need them as a definitive
> reference and be prepared to pay for them.
>
> For a small dev shop paying for every spec is a non-starter. Access to the
> specs is also not reserved for members. Organisations become members of W3C
> to support the consortium's work and to have input into the development of
> standards not for any privileged access to the specs.
>
>
>
> ·         In my opinion, we should make use of ISO and other work as
> components. ISO 20022 is surely a given and could be extended with JSON
> formats next to XML and ASN.1.
>
> Absolutely. My one concern about ISO20022 is that the messaging seems to
> be very use case specific. i.e. There is a message definition for each use
> case and these definitions are extensive.
>
> I suspect we will be looking to define our standards at a higher level of
> abstraction with a minimal set of required fields and an extensible format
> since that's how the Web works and most successful Web standards have
> evolved.
>
>
>
> There was some effort from Erik and others to get a comprehensive
> dictionary from ISO20022 as a basis for our vocabulary but I think the
> result was that this simply doesn't exist.
>
> ISO 8583 is gradually on it’s way out, but we have to keep in mind that
> many processing systems are firmly based on this standard and migration
> will take 5-10 years. Other standards such as security, connectivity (NFC)
> are necessary elements as well.
>
> ISO8383 is dead. Long live ISO8583 :)
>
> The rate of innovation on the Web is certainly unmatched in most other
> ecosystems. That's probabaly why the "FinTech revoluton" is taking place as
> technology spills into industries that have not evolved as fast as they
> could have.
>
> I like our approach of dealing with friction points and interoperability
> and letting the existing schemes (like card and others based on dinosaur
> technology) operate within those new paradigms but at the same time
> allowing new schemes to evolve that are more suited to the Web architecture.
>
>
> ·         The W3C WPAY must define the gaps and fill these with open
> standards, building on the fundaments of ISO and others. In the cards
> world, you could say that EMV dit that as well, athough still not as open
> as is the case with W3C...
>
> +1 - although we shouldn't expect the world to simply patch the holes and
> ignore the opportunities to embrace the Web as a replacement for these
> legacy networks that run on ISO-developed protocols.
>
> At the end of the day the ISO protocols can easily be adapted to run on
> the Internet as opposed to private networks and I expect that this will
> ultimately be the way things move (unless the ISO protocols prove to be a
> hindrance to this or some other factor impacts this).
>
> I see our role within the IG as being the facilitators of a process where
> everybody wins. Ideally the traditional institutions like FIs, SWIFT, ISO
> embrace the Internet as the infrastructure upon which they will build their
> next iteration of payments services and will use mature and trusted Web
> technologies to do it. In that way the innovation on that system is not
> limited to large organisations with specialized knowledge of the domain.
>
> The incumbents benefit from an ecosystem that is able to innovate and
> evolve much faster than before and developers are empowered to participate
> in this process (even if it's just a guy with his laptop and an internet
> connection).
>
>
>
>
>
> Comments welcome!
>
>
>
> Evert Fekkes
>
> Rabobank
>
>
>
> *Van:* Adrian Hope-Bailie [mailto:adrian@ripple.com]
> *Verzonden:* woensdag 2 september 2015 15:32
> *Aan:* KETELS Kris
> *CC:* Adrian Hope-Bailie; Kepeng Li; Adler, Patrick; Fekkes, ER (Evert);
> VIGNET cyril; j.j.spaanderman@dnb.nl; Web Payments IG; Ian Jacobs
> *Onderwerp:* Re: Organize a chat on account/ledger capabilities?
>
>
>
> Hi Kris,
>
>
>
> I'd classify ISO 20022 as an exception. The development of the standard
> was done in the traditional ISO manner but the standard is just a
> methodology that laid a foundation for open development of the messaging
> standards.
>
>
>
> Traditionally ISO standards are developed quite differently to Web
> standards. They are developed in closed groups under strict confidentiality
> and the standards themselves are not free and open for anyone to download
> and implement royalty-free.
>
>
>
> The W3C (like the IEEE, ETT Internet Society etc ) are advocates of open
> standards principals: https://open-stand.org/ which are quite different
> to the principals of ISO.
>
>
>
> That is not to say there are not reasons for there to be different
> approaches to standardisation for different circumstances but from the
> perspective of Web technology development I would strongly favour open
> standards.
>
>
>
> Some illustrative anecdotes:
>
>
>
> I worked for a long time at for a very large payments software vendor
> where we spent a lot of our time ensuring our software was compliant with
> the latest specifications. These were usually variations of ISO8583 from
> different networks. All of these specs were closely guarded confidential
> documents that required careful management of their distribution. To this
> day I have not seen a copy of the original ISO8583 spec from ISO because my
> company would have had to pay a lot of money for it just for me to have
> that privilege.
>
>
>
> I am part of the W3C liaison with ISO for ISO12812 and have had to install
> a whole load of document lifecycle management software on my laptop just to
> be able to receive documents to do my work.
>
>
>
> The reality is that the ISO model may work in manufacturing or similar
> industries where there are layers of abstraction from the specification to
> the implementation and the cost of getting your hands on the spec is
> minimal in comparison to all of the other input costs.
>
>
>
> On the Web, where some products are developed with almost zero overheads
> on tiny budgets as they attempt to get traction this model simply doesn't
> work. The only people that can afford to be bothered with ISO specs are
> already large companies the majority of whom are struggling to innovate
> fast enough to defend themselves against the threat of the small start-ups
> (especially so in the financial technology sector).
>
>
>
> So, I can imagine these incumbents being very supportive of ISO
> specifications, especially in jurisdictions where they have implicit
> regulatory backing, but that would simply be because it helps them maintain
> their defense against disruptive innovators that see proprietary and closed
> specifications as barriers to entry.
>
>
>
> On ISO20022 specifically:
>
>
>
> I think the approach taken with ISO20022 is excellent. I am certain it
> will become the language of payments globally and that is attributable in
> large parts to the availability of information on it's use. It's the only
> developer friendly ISO specification initiative I am aware of.
>
>
>
> I would like it if JSON encoding was supported as a first-class citizen
> since that is the the most common data encoding format on the Web (I know
> it's possible just not easy).
>
>
>
> I would also be interested to know if ISO20022 had picked a linked-data
> format (like JSON-LD) for encoding if the current plethora of message types
> and fields and complexity could have been avoided but who can say.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, KETELS Kris <Kris.KETELS@swift.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
>
>
> Can you explain why you qualify ISO standards as being the opposite of
> open W3C standards?
>
> I myself haven’t encountered a more open (financial) standard as ISO 20022.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Kris
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adrian Hope-Bailie [mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com]
> *Sent:* 19 August 2015 18:58
> *To:* Ian Jacobs
> *Cc:* Kepeng Li; Adler, Patrick; Adrian Hope-Bailie; Evert Fekkes; VIGNET
> cyril; j.j.spaanderman@dnb.nl; Web Payments IG
> *Subject:* Re: Organize a chat on account/ledger capabilities?
>
>
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> Definitely interested. It would be great if the standards that were used
> for XS2A came out of this group and followed all of the open standards
> principles of the W3C and used Web technology as opposed to some ISO
> standard.
>
> We need to get some direct participation from the EPC, EBA etc
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> On 19 August 2015 at 18:45, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kepeng, Pat, Adrian, Evert, Cyril, Jurgen, (and others who may be
> interested),
>
> I was chatting with Kepeng yesterday about capabilities related to
> account/ledger access. We were discussing
> the sorts of useful things one could do if there were standard APIs for
> account/ledger access, including building
> risk monitoring systems that would have an easier time working with
> diverse types of accounts. Also, I wondered
> whether PSD2 regulation in Europe might be leading to a need for open
> standards to provide access to
> accounts from Web applications.
>
> Maybe we can organize a Thursday call around this topic so that we can
> determine who is interested, and
> whether, for example, there is even enough interest to start a task force.
>
> Please let me know if this discussion would interest you. Thanks!
>
> Ian
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================
> Rabobank disclaimer: http://www.rabobank.nl/disclaimer
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 16:05:42 UTC

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