- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:04:47 -0400
- To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKcXiSoEQJrr89a4iLA1iVHoRidJLgs_QaVbqi0uticFVk=zfQ@mail.gmail.com>
RE: "fundamental limitations of the Web (browser) platform which still haven't been adequately addressed" This could be stated as a frustration or as a neutral fact. The W3C staff have constraints they must work within, being employees of a sort of 'secretariat' that has a sort of 'security council' of members whose role is similar to the role played by exceptionalist countries of the UN (some permanent, some invited in on 'good' behaviour'. They are what they are. Both the W3C and the UN organizations are representative of their corporation and country members respectively, within structures that are indeed 'inclusive' of everybody else to some extent, but whose most significant decision-making processes are shaped by and generally favor incumbents. If one's mission is to optimize digital payments, and certain aspects that would be optimally addressed in W3C specs don't make it through the W3C's processes, then go for a work-around. One could explore whether certain of those functional objectives might instead be pursued through the ITU or the IETF. And one can explore whether something like a parallel spec can be put forward (as in the tradition of "dissenting opinions" in law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenting_opinion ). These need not be done in an antagonistic way. Joseph Potvin On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Anders Rundgren < anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: > Joseph, > > The Web Payment WG is NOT trying to create a "Payment Standard" but > something that they claim can build on existing and new payment standards. > > Will this succeed? I doubt that because there are very few signs of any > genuine interest from for example VISA (they have recently launched their > own API). > > The core problem with Web Payments is (IMO) not related to formats or > processes, but to fundamental limitations of the Web (browser) platform > which still haven't been adequately addressed. > > Anders > On Apr 4, 2016 11:29 PM, "Joseph Potvin" <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: > >> RE: "if W3C is not the answer for this" >> >> The Web is the optimal layer for standardization of some *but not all* >> aspects of Web-mediated payment. Therefore this current schism may be a >> blessing in disguise, if this turns out to be a useful bifucation point at >> which the excellent integrated work that's been done to date is critically >> assessed to determine which open standards and open quasi-standards bodies >> may be the optimal ones to migrate certain elements to. The the community >> can build upon many existing partnerships amongst open standards bodies. >> >> I've forwarded below a message I originally sent a year ago relating to >> working relationships between W3C and other standards bodies, and amongst >> varous other standards bodies. Maybe this, just in terms of the way of >> thinking suggested here, might lead to some ideas in response to: "Now >> what?" >> >> *---------- Forwarded message ----------* >> *From: Joseph Potvin* <jpotvin@opman.ca> >> *Date: Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:55 AM* >> *Subject: Re: [glossary] External data dictionary reference requirements* >> *To: E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl <E.R.Fekkes@rn.rabobank.nl>, Web Payments >> CG <public-webpayments@w3.org <public-webpayments@w3.org>>, Web Payments IG >> <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>>* >> >> >> >> *RE: Are there specific standards bodies FORMALLY recognized by the W3C?* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Hmm, in fact I was hoping there were but I don't know.In domains like >> payments and e-commerce, any Venn diagram of the relevant deep-rooted >> standards bodies will look like the overlapping circles of the Olympic >> logo. So formal liaisons seem to me indispensible to facilitate dedicated >> efforts to map the structure, semantics & syntax. Ideally the sort of >> formal recognition I had in mind for this IG would be like these >> examples:W3C & OASIS >> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/01/w3c-oasis-cgm-final-051215.pdf >> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/01/w3c-oasis-cgm-final-051215.pdf>W3C & >> OMA http://www.w3.org/2004/05/W3C-OMA-Agreement-FINAL.html >> <http://www.w3.org/2004/05/W3C-OMA-Agreement-FINAL.html>W3C & VoiceXML >> Forum http://www.w3.org/2001/10/MOU.txt >> <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/MOU.txt>Here also are some non-W3C examples:* >> IEC, ISO, ITU & >> UN/ECEhttp://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ebusiness/Pages/mou/MoUMG-members.aspx >> <http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ebusiness/Pages/mou/MoUMG-members.aspx>* ISO & >> IEChttp://www.iso.org/iso/jtc1_home.html >> <http://www.iso.org/iso/jtc1_home.html>* IETF & >> ITUhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6756 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6756>* >> IETF & IEEE 802 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc4441rev-08 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc4441rev-08>* >> >> >> >> >> *RE: I am not sure if it is right to label this as the PRIMARY default >> external source.* >> >> >> >> >> *This IG has correctly identified ISO 20022 as the primary default >> external standard for the exchange of financial information. In a nutshell, >> my recommendation is for this W3C initiative to equivalently reference both >> ISO 20022 and ISO 19845 (i.e. UBL >> http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66370 >> <http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66370> due for final >> vote next month).SWIFT brought uniformity to the financial info for 20022, >> but things aren't quite as elegant in the realm of e-commerce standards. >> Rather than a nice orderly Olympic logo sort of Venn Diagram, it's more >> like scribbled circles, with the result that there's been considerable >> confusion about which standards bodies cover what aspects. Here's a (2011) >> effort by OASIS/UBL Co-Chair Ken Holman to situate these various >> circles:http://eeiplatform.com/4701/why-consider-cii-or-sepa-with-the-advent-of-ubl-2-1/ >> <http://eeiplatform.com/4701/why-consider-cii-or-sepa-with-the-advent-of-ubl-2-1/>* >> >> *Original source: http://ubl.xml.org/book/export/html/234 >> <http://ubl.xml.org/book/export/html/234>* >> >> >> >> *Things have advanced in the subsequent 4 years, and based on what I see, >> I recommend that UBL be given the same status as 20022 in this IG's work, >> acknowledging that there are likely a few aspects where they overlap an >> must be reconciled. * >> >> *This also means that anything which shows up in this W3C IG/GC work as >> "in scope", and which is already addressed in those other standards (ditto >> for others that I've not mentioned here), should be pointed at, not >> re-created or re-stated.* >> >> >> >> >> >> *Joseph PotvinOperations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérationsThe Opman >> Company | La compagnie Opmanjpotvin@opman.ca <jpotvin@opman.ca>Mobile: >> 819-593-5983 <819-593-5983>* >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 4 April 2016 at 22:02, Christopher Allen < >>> ChristopherA@blockstream.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Steven Rowat < >>>> steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> C. The real question is: can Credentials be solved in an >>>>> open-standard way, thereby creating a playing field on which an open Web >>>>> Payments standard can flourish? >>>> >>>> >>>> I have not introduced myself yet, as my firm's membership (Blockstream) >>>> has been approved for W3C but has not been activated pending paperwork. >>>> >>> >>> Welcome! Anyone is welcome to participate in community groups. Being a >>> paid member will also give you access to working groups. Ive been excited >>> by blockstream work for some time, and am working on payment channels too. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> However, I want to be clear that the interest from my firm, and in >>>> general from the blockchain and bitcoin community that we represent, is >>>> around verified credentials that supports decentralized identity, private >>>> channels, and selective disclosure/blinding/non-correlation of identifiers >>>> and attributes. This is the main reason why we are joining W3C. >>>> >>> >>> This is a great use case, and one that is well aligned with web standard >>> IMHO. I am also personally working on these use cases, and feel that W3C >>> standards represent an unparalleled solution. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> We are planning to make substantial contributions of open source code >>>> and cryptographic develop effort in these areas over the next year (which >>>> is part of why I'm involved with http://ID2020Summit.org at the UN) >>>> and desire this to be part of an open process. >>>> >>> >>> Awesome! >>> >>> >>>> But if W3C is not the answer for this, we'll move our efforts elsewhere. >>>> >>> >>> The W3C isnt a magic bullet. It produces web based specifications, >>> normally or a high quality in terms of extensibility and interop. The >>> specs can sometimes be hard to read and over a number of documents. And >>> some use cases require putting pieces together like lego, but I think the >>> foundation is largely sound. Teasing out the right answers from various >>> specs and putting them together into a technical solution takes a bit of >>> skill, I think, but also is a lot of fun. >>> >>> Every company has to make their bets, but Im not sure what alternatives >>> you'd look at. There's many opportunities to make bad bets in this area. >>> Do you have any particular concerns? >>> >>> Great to have you participating, I'd love over time to try and test >>> interoperability (especially if you've selected javascript for a language). >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -- Christopher Allen >>>> >>>> >>> >>
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2016 10:05:37 UTC