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

Re: modeling wallets

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 10:18:22 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3sRk8v213e6bV6xkF+gWVshC8r9EhzFxraER2hTNwirA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
My gut feeling is that the foundermental ideology surrounding the term
"wallet", needs to be challenged.

Perhaps therein;

A data space service may provide a "wallet" function

Yet, we do not securely carry our web in our pocket,
On Sun, 17 May 2015 at 7:48 pm, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> RE: "I think perhaps we need to drop the idea of "wallets"."
>
> For a transaction, the minimal set of classes AFAICT are:
>
>    - invoice service (1 instance)
>    - wallet service (2 instances)
>    - payment service (1 instance)
>
> ISO 20022 provides structure for messaging between the two wallet services
> and the payment service. But its scope does not include the larger
> information and messaging set that must occur between the invoice service
> (which specifies all the transaction attributes) and the two wallet
> services. These information and messaging elements are addressed in ISO/IEC
> 19845 (Approval stage. Final Draft International Standard) and ISO 15000.
>
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Timothy Holborn <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think perhaps we need to drop the idea of "wallets".
>>
>> In terms of funds, an array of traditional and non traditional formats
>> exist functionally.
>>
>> - Accounting for fiat
>> - crypto
>> - online banking
>> - etc. (Perhaps reputation,  etc. Currency related though,  perhaps?)
>>
>> Therein perhaps ontology work is needed?
>>
>> With regard to the "trust vehicle", which in legal terms usually relates
>> to a bucket rather than a legal entity with fudiciary responsibility over
>> that "bucket",
>>
>> The concept of "dataspace" seems to apply.
>>
>> I note; significant fudiciary / governance issues around understanding
>> metadata...
>>
>> Or #metadata
>>
>> Private dataspaces seem to be the core of the functional requirements.
>> Opencreds is attempting to find a solve for that void. Others in dev. Also.
>>
>> I imagine your requirements to relate to these context, with particular
>> interest in non-traditional formats? Ie: crypto?
>>
>> Tim.h.
>>
>> On 22:19, Sat, 16/05/2015 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> During my implementation of a proof of concept for virtual wallets, ive
>>> been trying to lock down the concept of wallet.
>>>
>>> I've come up with:
>>>
>>> "A wallet is a container of money"
>>>
>>> I dont distinguish between single user and multi user wallets, because,
>>> in the digital sense, it's the same code.
>>>
>>> So what I have is:
>>>
>>> #user   namespace : wallet  <URI>
>>>
>>> The URI of the wallet then can contain pointers to all the relevant
>>> details, e.g. where to find APIs, the name, where to send transactions.
>>> Then the URI is of type "Wallet".
>>>
>>> It seems like quite a simple model, another alternative would be to say
>>> "hasWallet", but that seemed a little ugly to me.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
Received on Sunday, 17 May 2015 10:18:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:40 UTC