- From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:09:32 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- CC: public-webpaymentsigcharter <public-webpaymentsigcharter@w3.org>
+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