- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:26:10 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: public-webpaymentsigcharter <public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
RE: " I wouldn't want to see a situation where we're waiting on UNCITRAL or ISO for years while they try to define a word for us to use for a new electronic commerce concept around cryptocurrency. In that case, we can mention in the spec that the terminology is non-standard and is being defined and used in the specification until better terminology comes along and is defined via UNCITRAL/ISO. When the better terminology comes along, we can update the spec. It's not at all "non-standard" to conform with a standard while adding concepts and elements that the standard does not yet address, especially if these extensions beyond the standard are contributed into the standard body's deliberation process for evolution. Doing one's own thing is inherently faster than negotiating a common thing amongst many parties, so there's no shame in tech standardization taking longer than tech unilateralism. Standardization depends upon autonomous advances beyond the standard, however. It would be incorrect to suggest that standards bodies undertake development-by-committee -- granted that when negotiations amongst diverse implementers bog down (inadvertently, or through deliberate obstinacy by a market-dominant player whose particular interests are not served by open fair compeitition), it can sometimes seem similar. Joseph On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On 07/16/2014 01:31 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >> David's tongue-in-cheek comment carries an element of insight that >> ought to be addressed. Terminology does matter in communication, >> contracting and litigation, and my thoughts are: >> >> 1. Neither the financial world nor the technology world need yet >> another glossary to be maintained. > > +1 > >> W3C has a mandate for a certain domain of standards, but this does >> not extend to all the terminology touched by its use cases. > > +1 > >> I'm only saying that the W3C is not the place for the WB or any >> organization to introduce terminology that differs from UNCITRAL and >> the ISO terms. > > +1 > > That said, I wouldn't want to see a situation where we're waiting on > UNCITRAL or ISO for years while they try to define a word for us to use > for a new electronic commerce concept around cryptocurrency. In that > case, we can mention in the spec that the terminology is non-standard > and is being defined and used in the specification until better > terminology comes along and is defined via UNCITRAL/ISO. When the better > terminology comes along, we can update the spec. > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments > http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/ -- Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca Mobile: 819-593-5983
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 09:26:57 UTC