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

Re: W3C Web Payments Use Cases 1.0 first public draft

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:20:04 -0400
Message-ID: <553140C4.9040506@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
CC: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 04/17/2015 12:43 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On 17 April 2015 at 16:16, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com 
> <mailto:dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 04/16/2015 03:45 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On 16 April 2015 at 18:53, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>>     <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hey folks,
>>
>>         The first public working draft of the W3C Web Payments Use
>>         Cases has
>>         just been published:
>>
>>         http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4616?pk_campaign=feed&pk_kwd=first-public-working-draft-web-payments-use-cases-1-0
>>
>>         There's a blog post here covering the release:
>>
>>         http://www.w3.org/blog/wpig/2015/04/16/web-payments-use-cases-fpwd/
>>
>>         A good chunk of the Credentials CG's work has been integrated
>>         into the
>>         document, the rest is slated to be integrated during the next
>>         two months.
>>
>>         This is very important progress. It demonstrates that the Web
>>         Payments
>>         Interest Group is functioning in a healthy way, is producing
>>         relevant
>>         material, and is moving quickly.
>>
>>         Thanks to all in this group that helped make this happen over
>>         the past
>>         4+ years.
>>
>>         Review comments from this group are requested. Instructions
>>         on how to
>>         provide feedback can be found here:
>>
>>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150416/#sotd
>>
>>
>>     Thanks for sharing and all the effort you've put in.  Congrats on
>>     getting this far!
>>
>>     I've been prototyping and testing, a pure web standards based
>>     payment system, and am at a point where I'm processing about
>>     250,000 payments a year, which is small scale in financial terms,
>>     but I have found quite useful as a learning experience.
>>
>>     What I have found is over 99% of the payments so far, I've been
>>     working on are a very simple use case, namely:
>>
>>     Alice pays Bob <amount> <currency>
>>
>>     Would this be considered part of section A -- "Future Work"?  Or
>>     is this kind of payment covered in an existing use case, because
>>     the ones I looked at all look more like purchases than payments.
>>
>>     I'm slightly sure where my work fits into the intersection of the
>>     IG / CG / WG, or if it intersects at all.
>
>     The Web Payments Use Cases document is organized into the "Phases"
>     of making a payment. Each micro use case (for which there are many
>     more to be added to the document), should fit into these phases.
>     Not every step of each phase needs to be executed (some are
>     optional depending on the type of payment). Here's an example that
>     analyzes how Alice would pay Bob (person-to-person):
>
>     Phase 1:
>
>     Agreement on Terms - payer and payee agree on
>       - what will be purchased: "happiness"
>       - for how much: "amount"
>       - in what currency: "btc"
>       - which payment schemes are accepted: "BitCoin"
>
>     Phase 2:
>
>     Discovery of Accepted Schemes - bitcoin
>     Selection of Payment Instruments - bitcoin
>     Authentication to Access Instruments - bitcoin private key
>
>     Phase 3:
>
>     Initiation of Processing - payer initiates payment
>     Verification of Available Funds - bitcoin protocol
>     Authorization of Transfer - bitcoin protocol
>     Completion of Transfer - bitcoin protocol
>
>     Phase 4:
>
>     Delivery of Product - money has bought happiness
>     Delivery of Receipt - receipt has been delivered
>
>     IMO, obvious minimal targets for standardization: payment request
>     and payment receipt.
>
>     I believe this case fits nicely into the use cases framework.
>
>
> I see that this workflow is useful.
>
> I find a payment to be thought of as a "purchase of happiness" to be 
> slightly contrived, maybe I could live with it tho.  What if im not 
> purchasing happiness, or not purchasing anything at all?

I originally had typed in "nothing" instead of "happiness". I was just 
trying to add some levity. :)

Purchasing "nothing" is just fine.

-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 17:20:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:39 UTC