- From: David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:25:39 +0000
- To: "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BY1PR03MB13388ABCA7186E7367629424C8390@BY1PR03MB1338.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Peter: Thanks for these observations and most importantly for taking an active interest. No excuses here - the IG has been considering how to realign the documents named in the IG roadmap. The fact of the matter is that a large proportion of the available working bandwidth of the IG membership has been absorbed into the activities of the WG, so there are two main reasons for "gaps": 1) As the WG continues its work toward FPWD (hopefully later this month), the IG does not want to introduce conflicts with that work, per the following point. 2) To this point, here is been scarce bandwidth to do a credible job of revising the documents. It's also important to understand that what might be called "authority to define" in some other standards organizations is more consensus and change driven: implementers get some leeway in interpretation, and gaps may appear between IG and WG writings. Read on for more on this topic. You wrote: > I take the liberty to translate that into the expectation that there > will be somewhere a single well-maintained (web-)page containing all > the links > (URL's) to the most recent versions of the documents necessary to be > able to participate and contribute .... One reason we scheduled a mid-year face to face meeting was to help rekindle IG membership energy toward accomplishing the goals you mention. To that end, we have been reaching out to potential new members and invited experts to provide the ability to move forward. We did not name a champion for the document effort at the face to face, however. > Can someone help me find that page if it is indeed there ? I wish there were an easy answer. It sounds like you've been reading the right places: Vision - http://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/Vision Roadmap - http://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/Roadmap/ Use Cases - http://www.w3.org/TR/web-payments-use-cases/ >Should I join forces somewhere to help building the one ? Absolutely! This is indeed an important effort for the IG, and only the members can commit to doing the work. Personally, I am on vacation this week, and won't return until July 11. There is also a WG meeting the end of this week, and it's going to keep forward motion on this document topic to a minimum for the next couple of weeks (for the reasons above). Please stay tuned for upcoming telcon announcements. > I feel a bit stuck at the moment. For that, I apologize. We're looking forward to working with you. Best regards, David Ezell > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Potgieser [mailto:p.g.l.potgieser@planet.nl] > Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 11:18 AM > To: 'Web Payments WG'; 'Web Payments IG' > Subject: RE: New Web Payments Architecture document proposal > > Hi, > > No doubt many if not all of you already know which documents to look > at and comment, and which ones to - in fact - ignore. > I must say I am still tapping in the dark largely. > I have been reading about a dozen documents so far, both from the > references given below as well as surfacing from 'Google searches'. > > I personally observe a discrepancy between - on the one hand - the > many persons and entities involved in the work and on the other hand > the 'age' of the documents I encounter, seen the number of flaws, > omissions, 'white spots', etc. that I perceive. > > Surely, these matters must have been covered by now (given the amount > of people involved combined with the age of the documents) .... which > can only lead me to one conclusion: so far I obviously have not been > able to find the most recent working versions ;-) > > I'm sure you agree that commenting on the basement is a bit a waste of > effort, if everyone is already working on the second floor. I've been > offered help to find my way in the documents by individuals reading about my quest. > I surely appreciate that, but this individual support won't help 'the > newbies coming after me'. > > This is W3C right ? Following up on e.g. (from 'Web Principles'): > "Any architecture grounded in the Web should respect well-known Web > principles such as: > * Adhering to Web architecture fundamentals > * Being open and usable by anyone, including those who are not yet > connected to the Web" > I take the liberty to translate that into the expectation that there > will be somewhere a single well-maintained (web-)page containing all > the links > (URL's) to the most recent versions of the documents necessary to be > able to participate and contribute .... Can someone help me find that > page if it is indeed there ? Should I join forces somewhere to help > building the one ? I feel a bit stuck at the moment. > > Please advise, > > > > Greetz > Peter > > > > Peter Potgieser > > Business Innovation > Senior Consultant Industry Standards > e-mail: p.g.l.potgieser@planet.nl<mailto:p.g.l.potgieser@planet.nl> > GSM: + 31 6 301 803 99 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Manu Sporny [mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:19 PM > To: Peter Potgieser; 'Web Payments WG'; 'Web Payments IG' > Subject: Re: New Web Payments Architecture document proposal > > On 06/24/2016 10:20 AM, Peter Potgieser wrote: > > I recently started my participation in the WPIG and I am trying to > > get up to date with the matter at hand. > > Welcome to the group, Peter! > > > One of the first documents I dove into is > > UNOFFICIAL-web-payments-architecture-20160618/ > > I assume you're talking about this document (the link above is listed > in the document, but broken due to the unofficial status of the web > payments architecture summary doc): > > https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/wparch/ > > Other suggested reading for Web Payments IG: > > https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/Vision > > https://www.w3.org/TR/web-payments-use-cases/ > > > I have a number of questions - of course. I have been trying to find > > the answers by going through the information available, but I got a > > bit lost. > > It's a bit of a maze at the moment, apologies for that. :) > > > And seeing that (for instance) 'last update' of > > https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Glossary is more than a year ago > > and some action points have a similar age (see for instance > > https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/actions/open, the action on ISO > > and X9 ) I started fearing being on the wrong tracks. > > The latest version of the Web Payments IG Glossary can be found here: > > http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/glossary/ > > Note that it is a mess. Due to the quick pace in the Web Payments WG, > we have multiple editors adding/modifying that glossary simultaneously > thus resulting in less cohesion than we'd like. > > > I did not want to annoy everybody with my 'learning in' > > Don't worry about doing that. We have 170+ participants between both > groups. I expect that a non-trivial number of us have the same > questions that you do. > > > If I have comments on a document, how am I supposed to do that? > > If in doubt, send your comments/questions to the mailing list. It's > ultimately the job of the editors of the document to track these > comments and respond to them. > > If you want to make life easy on the editors, file issues for things > that you know are bugs. Issues for the Web Payments IG documents can > be filed > here: > > https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/issues > > Issues for the Web Payments WG can be filed on each documents issue > tracker (which you should be able to find at the top of the document > somewhere). For example, to log bugs against the Web Payments Browser > API specification, you can do so here: > > https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues > > > It would be nice if the document had line-numbers for reference but > > it doesn't; > > I doubt that will ever happen at W3C. It's extra visual clutter that > most don't care about. If you want to make a comment on a section, > note the title of the section and include around a sentence or two of text. > That's enough for most people to know exactly which section of the > document you're talking about. > > > - What is the (background) information this document is based on ? > > For example, a sentence like 'Improve the interface experience for > > all stakeholders' could refer to experience of a human user while > > interacting via the screen of a mobile phone, but it could equally > > mean the interface used 'down there' at the TCP/IP level .... > > I was trying to be succinct, simplify the text, and be general. It > means both the human interface (UI) and machine interface (API). That > said, perhaps it's too vague. Thoughts? > > > Is there a layered structure - like the European EIF, or perhaps > > even the good old OSI 7 layer model - in which the statements can be > > positioned ? > > Most of what we're discussing happens at OSI layers 5, 6, and 7. > > > - Is there a 'Definition of Terms' ? For example, the sentence 'The > > requested mechanism to be used for processing the payment. Examples > > include: credit card, ACH, SEPA, and Bitcoin.' > > Yes, the terms are imported from the glossary, which is a bit of a > mess right > now: > > http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/glossary/ > > > seems to mix up legal framework (SEPA > > http://ec.europa.eu/finance/payments/sepa/index_en.htm ) with > > instrument (credit card) with concept / infrastructure (ACH), etc. > > Any suggestions to use the right terms or examples are very welcome. > > > By the way, ACH in US > > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Clearing_House ) is > > something rather different from an ACH like Equens > > (http://www.equens.com/aboutus/index.jsp ); in order to be able to > > formulate effective statements it is necessary to identify what > > terms exactly mean. And the Glossary I found does not help here ... > > - > > Agreed... what do you think would help us do this more effectively? > > > is there a collection of 'scenarios' depicting payments (and their > > causes) in which the payments you are focusing on can be positioned ? > > I do not mean 'use cases' but instead a focus more concentrated on > > 'infrastructure'. I mean, there are many well established practices > > in the marketplace and it would help uptake and understanding if the > > mechanisms you depict could be easily positioned in them. > > We have a Web Payments Flows task force that may be working on what > you're alluding to above: > > https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-flows/wiki > > > If I see a sentence like 'Specific information pertaining to the > > transaction. Examples include: price, transaction reference number, > > and items being purchased.' then it makes me think more about an > > invoice than a payment actually and usually the invoice information > > is not repeated in the payment but a reference to the invoice itself > > is given instead. > > Yes, this is a by-product of the direction the Browser API has taken: > > https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/ > > There was an attempt early on to separate the ecommerce/shopping > cart/invoicing portion from the payment portion. That attempt failed > and the API currently includes both the request for payment and > information traditionally considered a part of an invoice. > > > - I strongly suggest you take a look at for instance 'ISO20022 for > > Dummies' (copy obtainable via http://www.iso20022.org ) to help > > understand the positioning of electronic messages for this purpose. > > There are many in the group that are fully aware of ISO20022 and its purpose. > We also have participants from the ISO20022 Registration Authority in > the group. > > The Web Payments Core Messages specification: > > https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-core-messages/ > > and Web Payments HTTP API specification: > > https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-http-api/ > > are attempting to align as much as possible with ISO20022 while not > completely de-coupling from the Browser API. > > Underlying all of this is a mis-alignment in philosophy and the groups > are currently trying to work their way through this. To be clear, I > think the mis- alignment has more to do with different participants > having different priorities. > > > I do not understand the use case given in 5. How does this relate to > > the current 'common practice' ? > > That section attempts to demonstrate how a tokenized credit card > transaction would occur under the Web Payments architecture. > > > What is new and where are the overlaps ? > > There are at least the following "new" concepts: > > 1. The concept of a payment application. > 2. The concept of routing a payment request to a payment application. > 3. The concept of routing a payment response to the payee. > > > No doubt some of my questions are already answered somewhere - but > > forgive me in that case where I could not find the answers (yet). I > > really hope you can help me out. > > I hope this helps, Peter. Great questions, and let us know if you have > any other follow-up questions. > > Again, welcome to the group! :) > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > JSON-LD Best Practice: Context Caching > https://manu.sporny.org/2016/json-ld-context-caching/ > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus >
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2016 16:26:29 UTC