Re: "An Ontology of the Digital Wallet"

"An Ontology of the Digital Wallet" v0.001

1. The "digital wallet" is described here as an entity with a set of
relationship-dependent functions, uncoupled from any particular business
model or implementation architecture.
...

With discussion remaining on this list, anyone is invited to fix and
further this germination of an ontology here:
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/a_digital_wallet_ontology

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joseph-potvin/2/148/423>


On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2015-10-21 14:15, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Major commerical suppliers of competing digital wallet implementations may
> or may not like the framework, may or may not use it to describe
> themselves, but at least the broader community can describe and
> differentiate their concepts and functional implementations more
> pragmatically with a common ontology.
>
>
> That's the wallet suppliers' problem in a nutshell: More work but no
> benefit since their own (mostly secret) ontologies obviously work.
>
> Currently a wallet is tightly coupled to a business model which greatly
> complicates standardization efforts.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joseph-potvin/2/148/423>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Asbjørn Ulsberg < <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
> asbjorn@ulsberg.no> wrote:
>
>> 2015-10-21 12:07 GMT+02:00 Joseph Potvin < <jpotvin@opman.ca>
>> jpotvin@opman.ca>:
>>
>> > My suggestion is that we work to "understand what the various camps
>> agree
>> > and disagree about" in defining "digital wallet". I presume you don't
>> > disagree with that! :-)
>>
>> I at least agree with this.
>>
>> > "We believe that one reason for this is that the digital wallet market
>> is
>> > fragmented and providers use incompatible programming interfaces.
>> > [...]
>>
>> In my experience, this is true.
>>
>> > [...] The proposed standards from W3C will help ensure interoperability
>> > of different solutions by standardizing the programming interfaces."
>>
>> I really hope it will, but only time will tell. I think we need Apple,
>> Google and (now) Microsoft on board for a final W3C Recommendation to
>> become a relevant industry standard. But I might be wrong.
>>
>> --
>> Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-        <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
>> asbjorn@ulsberg.no
>> «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
>>
>
>
>