- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 10:18:22 +0000
- To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3sRk8v213e6bV6xkF+gWVshC8r9EhzFxraER2hTNwirA@mail.gmail.com>
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