- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:31:14 -0400
- To: public-webpaymentsigcharter <public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Cc: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
David's tongue-in-cheek comment carries an element of insight that ought to be addressed. Terminology does matter in communication, contracting and litigation, and my thoughts are: 1. Neither the financial world nor the technology world need yet another glossary to be maintained. My original suggestion on this point was for W3C to simply adopt an existing glossary. I'd add that if there's refinement or extensions to do, then the (soon) W3C Interest Group can simply request that the appropriate standard's technical committee address the change within its process. W3C has a mandate for a certain domain of standards, but this does not extend to all the terminology touched by its use cases. 2. In the references given, UNCITRAL and the ISO are, in their domains, the premier standards bodies, and they both have legal significance. However The World Bank is not a standards body, it is an operational stakeholder. If the World Bank wants certain tweaks to terminology in the language for the web payments domain, it should express these issues to UNCITRAL WG IV as the global standards body for reference or "model" law on electronic commerce, and/or the ISO/TC68 which is the global standards body for financial services messaging. I'm not denigrating the World Bank in any way, indeed I've contracted to the Bank at various times. I'm only saying that the W3C is not the place for the WB or any organization to introduce terminology that differs from UNCITRAL and the ISO terms. -- Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca Mobile: 819-593-5983 On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote: > > The charter includes this within its initial scope statement: > > Web Payments terminology: > > Identify and review existing terminology that has been established by a > variety of international organizations and standards. This includes e.g. > UNCITRAL terminology, World Bank Terminology, ISO20022 or ISO29115. > Adopt, refine or extend existing terminology(ies) to cover needs identified > in new use-cases or scenarios > > Somewhere within the charter document, explicitly declare production and > maintenance of a deliverable, authoritatively versioned, normative glossary > of recommended and deprecated terminology as a goal and purpose of the > working group. This goal may be considered implied within "Adopt, refine or > extend" but those seem to this reviewer to be insufficiently explicit > internal-facing verbs. > > This Official Glossary would be a third deliverable, with a success criteria > of references made to it in other documentation. > > Claiming maintenance of The Official Glossary would give the WG a permanent > focus and reason to exist, and afford opportunities to reward volunteers > with intrinsically amusing debate on word choice as well as glory of > authoritative recognition. > > > Thank you > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 17:32:01 UTC