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

Re: [glossary] External data dictionary reference requirements

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 16:34:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_Jj6+dO0xTNJpS6D94++bU=_DojWiEXZ9cFZOc_qLs2Aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Joseph,

I think we do  need to ensure we don't re-invent the wheel here. (Thanks
for explaining what the Past-the-puck Task Force will do, I was still at a
loss).

I agree that we need to have a list of existing external standards that we
should be leveraging and I'm not sure where that should live or be
referenced.

I am hearing comments along the lines of "as an IG we don't have normative
references" but I think we do need a way to pass on recommendations from
the IG to the various WGs of which existing standards to use and what parts
of these.

I think this is worth a discussion on the next IG call.

Adrian

On 22 May 2015 at 15:58, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> Ah, exactly the sort of list I had in mind, thanks.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison
>
> RE: "We should evaluate each reference and determine whether it advances
> our work. There may be different reasons to choose a reference (e.g., we
> might want to refer to a widely accepted de jure standard in one place, or
> an emerging specification from a de facto group that clearly has broad
> adoption in another)."
>
> Agreed, that's what I meant.
>
> With a "WPIG Liaisons Task Force" (which I referred to last week as a
> "Past-the-Puck Task Force"), the community can make a pro-active effort to
> avoid:
> (a) ad hoc cherry-picking this field here and that field there from
> amongst overlapping standards & quasi-standards, which would surely lead to
> semantic dissonance in our own data model
> (b) inadvertent divergence from the structure and sematics of
> well-reviewed standards & quasi-standards due to gaps in liaison with other
> standards bodies
> (c) getting accidentally caught up in un-reconciled redundancies amongst
> other standards bodies. For example the W3C Liaison list include both OASIS
> and UN/CEFACT, the former which hosts UBL, the latter which hosts ebXML.
> UN/CEFACT Core Components (CC) provide naming rules and data types. UBL is
> based on UN/CEFACT-CC, and provides a Business Information Entities
> (address, payment) structured into specific document schemas (e.g. order,
> invoice) with XML. But there's some redundancy and competition about where
> one ends and the other begins. The WPIG ought to delineate its particular
> areas of reliance on one and the other to avoid the problem of (a) above.
>
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On May 22, 2015, at 12:27 AM, <E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl> <
>> E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> > Joseph,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the input on the Glossary page.
>> >
>> > I have two questions:
>> >
>> > 1.  “existing standards bodies recognized by the W3C”
>> > Are there specific standards bodies FORMALLY recognized by the W3C?
>> >We should evaluate each reference and determine whether it advances our
>> work. There may be
>> different reasons to choose a reference (e.g., we might want to refer to
>> a widely accepted de jure standard in
>> one place, or an emerging specification from a de facto group that
>> clearly has broad adoption in another).
>> > If so, could you point me to a reference to such a  list?
>> > (and I will then go look into that to see whether the standards from
>> payments such as EMV and PCI are listed there)
>> > If not, I would suggest to strike the wording "formally recognized by
>> the W3C”
>>
>> +1 to striking that. We should evaluate each reference and determine
>> whether it advances our work. There may be
>> different reasons to choose a reference (e.g., we might want to refer to
>> a widely accepted de jure standard in
>> one place, or an emerging specification from a de facto group that
>> clearly has broad adoption in another).
>>
>> I would think of “Recognized by W3C” as something demonstrated after we
>> create a reference rather than something
>> a priori that constrains how we choose references.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison
>>
>> --
>> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 14:34:38 UTC

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