- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:56:22 -0400
- To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- CC: public-webpaymentsigcharter <public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org>
On 05/30/2014 12:44 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: > Manu, An audience hierarchy as you suggest would be a terrible way > to go, and I think you haven't considered the implications. I didn't mean to suggest that we rate them from 1 to 10, put the lawyers at a 1, and don't pay any attention to them. Quite the contrary, all of those parties I listed are important and should be taken into account when figuring out messaging/terminology. That said, the W3C's mandate is to create technology solutions for real world problems. Terminology is important. When it comes to picking that terminology, we should make sure not to pick terminology that might confuse the group creating that technology, even if the lawyers have picked some terminology that works well for them. :) All Tobie and I are saying is: The terminology you're proposing is confusing to us, and if it's confusing to us, it will probably be confusing to the other technologists working on the problem. While you've solved the problem for UNCITRAL, you've made the problem worse for the technologists. Here are some of the terms we've identified as being problematic: * Digital wallet * Electronic Token * Tokenization * Identity * Verified / Validated * Account Here are the types of "electronic tokens" that pop into technologists' heads when you mention the term: session ID, OAuth token, browser cookie, hashed value, bearer token, credential, Bitcoin, JSON Web token, 2-factor authentication token, one-time password, ... I think you get the point - the terminology is so generic it's not useful (to technologists). We're just going to have to think through those issues, and I doubt we'll figure out the correct terminology before the charter goes to the AC for a vote. To be clear - I'm not disagreeing with you. Terminology is important. :) Your proposal for the particular usage of "electronic token" as defined by UNCITRAL is problematic. That shouldn't stop us - let's note it and move on to something we can get consensus on. :) -- 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/
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 15:56:52 UTC