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

Re: [Payments Architecture] A vision statement for the web payments architecture work

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 14:20:39 +1000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3g2zG+PYJOjw=f7dsztzzBT8v2brcn+awVHk3TpT9pwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
I've spent some time today reviewing the documents.

Here's a few comments, which are perhaps considering the issues in a
broader sense than the initial document envisaged; yet, i do see particular
differentiation between traditional web-standards works, and that of
Web-Payments / Open-Creds, which in combination may relate directly to
human rights principles pertaining to economic and political rights,
through the utility of technology not before available that in-turn
provides new options for a networked society.




   -

   Providing accessibility for payers and payees with disabilities

Web-Accessibility Definition [1] does not necessarily related directly and
holistically to other accessibility definitions used to define
web-accessibility or accessibility to economic participation.

To these ends, i envisage some of the architectural considerations should
include high-level documents of international consensus that best reflect
shared values in relation to commerce and terms-of-trade.

Some examples of vision statements that appear to be aligned, IMHO include;

   -

   International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [2]
   -

   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [3]
   -

   Internet Society: Values and Principles statement [4]


The other document that comes to mind with more specificity surrounding the
use of linked-data technology specifically, is TimBL’s designissues notes
on LinkedData [5]

   -

   Protecting the privacy of all participants


Privacy is one particular element of ‘data rights’ that can be transcribed
by RDF statements.  Therein the extensibility of payment participants to
extensibly define rules in relation to transactions may extend beyond
standardised privacy principles.  Australia has an array of privacy
principles outlined [6] that may provide support towards better defining
the terms, and/or understanding where definitions may be placed given the
variability of these principles on a state-by-state basis, including, the
capacity for web-transport between jurisdictions, which may in-turn be
supported by other notations such as ‘choice of law’ selections and/or
ontologically empowered capacities that may in future better reflect the
agreements understood by all participating-parties at the time of trade.

Related Local Activities

I attended a Metadata Conference recently in Melbourne where the demands of
‘metadata retention’ were discussed [7] in context telecommunications
requirements and challenges.

IMHO, the video provides a presentation outlining the current position of
our leading telecommunications institutions with regard to ‘metadata’ and
how legislative agenda is being defined, through particular narratives used
to define solutions in utility of current understandings of the technology
landscape.

Perhaps importantly; the definition of ‘metadata’ should be defined
(whether that is an inclusive or exclusionary definition) if possible as to
provide guidance for legislators when considering the layer-cake that is
‘metadata’ vs. data that applies to legislation, such as ‘privacy
principles’.


[1] http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility

[2] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx

[3] http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

[4] http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/mission/values-and-principles

[5] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

[6]
http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-resources/privacy-fact-sheets/other/privacy-fact-sheet-17-australian-privacy-principles
[7] https://youtu.be/i3mFHTdR2jE


On 23 May 2015 at 06:28, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 22 May 2015 at 15:07, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>
>> I think most are in agreement that decentralized is better than
>> centralized for a democratised system where the goal is to give no party an
>> advantage over others purely due to the architecture of the system.
>>
>> Having said that, I'm not sure  what you mean by "payments should be
>> decentralized". Can you explain or propose the content you think would be
>> appropriate?
>>
>
> The web was designed to be a highly connected system where anything can be
> connected to anything, what I call A2A.
>
> As such if that architecture is facilitated, it becomes a self healing
> network, with relatively few central points of failure.
>
> We've seen that the web can be both used to build centralized structures
> and decentralized structures.  Perhaps centralization is winning as of
> 2015.  Decentralization is a great challenge, and Im not optimistic the IG
> can get it right first time, but maybe worthwhile to try.
>
> Depending on design decisions the work produced can lean one way or
> another.  One example is that a web page was designed to be like a piece of
> paper, so the content is independent of the medium or the location, one way
> to do this in linked data is to have arbitrarily many concepts on a single
> page, with the page itself being related to HTTP.
>
> One major problem with legacy systems is that, although designed to have a
> level playing field, centralization happens, with "too big to fail" points
> of centralization.  This was one of the causes of the 2009 crises, and
> leads to systemic risk.  Hopefully web payments can have a different
> philosophy, and lead to less systemic risk.
>
> In line with your other bullet point "decentralized by design" could
> perhaps be a motivator.
>
>
>>
>> On 22 May 2015 at 12:33, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 May 2015 at 14:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The IG are trying to finalize a short vision statement for the work we
>>>> are undertaking, specifically with regards to the architecture we will be
>>>> developing, for payments on the Web.
>>>>
>>>> The document is intended to express the technical principles we
>>>> consider important in the design of the architecture and I'd appreciate
>>>> some input on it's content.
>>>>
>>>> The document is also intended to be short, less than a page, and as
>>>> such not too detailed. It's purpose is to frame the design and allow all
>>>> stakeholders to agree up front that we are aligned on our vision.
>>>>
>>>> The audience should be broad, and not necessarily payments or Web
>>>> technology experts, but since this is related to the design of a technical
>>>> architecture the content will be technical.
>>>>
>>>> Please have a look at the first draft of this document and send me your
>>>> feedback.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does the IG think payments should be decentralized?
>>>
>>> If so, perhaps a short bullet point on that?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>> p.s. Thanks Ian Jacobs for the initial work in getting this started.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2015 04:21:08 UTC

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