W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > February 2016

Re: Comments on VCTF Report

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:17 -0600
Message-Id: <CAM1Sok3iTHUEdV2zTaOiqtE4VW9tzWNMoDjx=2AeMAQrYQ4kTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Perhaps the problem statement needs to be cleared up in lay terms more effectively.

IMHO the inclusion of Linked-Data technology changes opportunities substantially.  I'm not clear on whether people who use internet generally or even many within the technical domain; are clear on the field of work of Linked-Data and the implications these works may have on the way communications technology interacts with life in a functional manner.

Purely RDBMS related web-technologies have properties and limitations that are unlike the functional properties made available via linked-data related alternatives..

Re: Payment Use-Cases,

- Warranty for products.
- History of Products (ie: vehicles repair records)
- Verified right to purchase (controlled products.)
- Invoices?  (i'm thinking about trades-people who may issue invoices in relation to services delivered)
- Accounting (verifying accounts have been audited)
- Verification of Payee (ie: paying the right person, who is a known legal entity, et.al <http://et.al/>.)
- Registrations for Commissions (inc. online royalties for sold creative works)

- Availability of (verified, financial) records in a privacy preserving way whilst enhancing capacity to more easily search / organise disparate records from a plurality of providers, through the utility of open-standards..

I can think of others...  Yet. Wasn't sure if you kept the list short purposefully...

On 20 February 2016 at 15:57, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
On 02/19/2016 11:48 PM, Nick Shearer wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 8:46 PM, Manu Sporny
>> <msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>> Do you think that writing up a draft charter along with a set of
>> use cases and presenting it to the interviewees again would elicit
>> a clear answer on whether or not they think the work should be done
>> at W3C?
> A draft charter would certainly clear up the scope of work that was
> being proposed and allow that to be evaluated with regards to the
> W3C’s remit, so could be a good idea.

Great, thanks Nick. That's what we're planning to propose as a next
step for the Verifiable Claims work during the Web Payments IG
face-to-face (see slide 11):

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1K6VHQ38XCoGfadNmE1OVCkS7hq32XiBfq-iMCVN8o68/edit#slide=id.gf0c87eb4f_0_259 <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1K6VHQ38XCoGfadNmE1OVCkS7hq32XiBfq-iMCVN8o68/edit#slide=id.gf0c87eb4f_0_259>

-- 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/ <https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/>

Received on Saturday, 20 February 2016 13:10:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:49 UTC