Re: A first draft of the future Web Payments Interest group is available for comments

+1 to Manu. In all cases, and this was mentioned in a couple of 
comments, the IG should work on a common terminology, and this is not 
something we are going to solve now. I will add this in the new version 
of the charter.

best
steph

Le 03/06/2014 17:56, Manu Sporny a écrit :
> 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
>

-- 
Stephane Boyera        stephane@w3.org
W3C                +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27
BP 93
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 16:10:06 UTC