Web Payments Interest Group -- 23 Apr 2015

<Ian> scribe:Ian

<scribe> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Apr/0139.html

<manu> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Apr/0139.html

<padler> Regrets all, I will try to follow/stay on IRC for clarification... however I have a work conflict and will not be able to join via voice..

Manu: Reminder - we are focusing on payment agent on both THurs and Fri calls...

Payments 2015 Conference Summary

<scribe> scribe: Ian

Manu: at the conf - david jackson, claudia, and I went to Payments 2015
... also @@ from ISO 12812 did a panel on payments standards
... well-received!
... large/small financial institutions and technology companies
... there was little knowledge about the web payments work, so it was good that we were able to get the message out
... I will follow up with Ian separately about potential participants

<padler> Were there any announcements/topics at the conference that would impact or be important to our work that should be considered?

IJ: Please do not send invitations to roundtable without discussing with staff. Thanks!

Manu: US Fed Faster Payments task force first meeting is end of April
... I've signed up my org
... I'm happy to act as a liaison until such time as you get involved directly.
... 12812 looking heavily into credentials work
... People are excited to see W3C taking on some of this work

IJ: How can we reach these people more effectively?

Manu: They may hear about work through consultants like Booz Allen
... in our other groups we've had some success doing short videos
... that's how many people learned about our linked data and credentials work
... conferences for now are our best bet.

Update on Payment Agent Status

<manu> scribenick: manu

Ian: I met with Pat earlier this week - unorganized summary of what happened:
... We discussed a lot about document structure, strong agreement that a strong analysis of the use cases are important to tease out requirements.
... We've been debating how to do the analysis - had a fairly lengthy discussion about whether we should tag things as we go, or look for patterns after the fact, or have a more thoughtful catalog.
... Pat's approach has been to work with people to come up ith a checklist - so we have a systematic view of use cases - so we have privacy issues/usability covered.
... We spent a good bit of time talking about how to organize analysis - then we talked about more architectural discussions - wrote lots of stuff on whiteboard - sort of beginning to model things. We cheated - didn't get to the analysis, concluded this is how we'll do analysis - looked at modelling again.
... I thought it was okay - there was a feedback loop there - be aware of these things as we do the analysis - we did not complete the analysis nor the modeling, that's why we have another call today. Hoped to have a big scratch pad by the end of today... here's what we came up with - here's the analysis - have the group look at it - confirm whether these issues arise...
... Don't know if we'll get to that today - it was a good discussion - I've had to talk to people about emerging architecture... better grip on it.
... Talking to them about emerging web of payment agents - also, coming up with charters - we need to understand as rapidly as possible, the space we're going to cover - that's why we need to spend big chunks of time on that.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say I'd like to join the call this afternoon, and question.

<padler> It would be great if the team could send thoughts on requirements to the list as well as any key thoughts on vision/drivers for what they need out of the architecture..

Manu: I'd like to join the discussion - we've built systems that do this stuff.

Ian: I don't think we're there yet - it's mostly been talking about analysis or how we do analysis.
... It's not quite that we're discussing architecture - it's really about how to do the analysis. How we do architecture influences how we go about analysis - feedback loop.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask about who we are talking to at Microsoft

work items (general)

<Ian> IJ: I want to get together with Pat today and then share something with the group

<Ian> Manu: I am champing at the bit to see what we can actually write (e.g,. introductory parts of the document, or digital receipt requirements)

Ian: We didn't come to any decision per se. I have to do several things - action item around draft charters - working w/ staff - Jeff on question of draft charter/charters for work. Also trying to get staff perspective for prioritization - important piece of work. For us to propose standards work, we need to prioritize what needs to happen in first volley of standards.
... What's the minimal amount of standardization we need to have the impact we want to have for some payment to happen?
... It's all tied up together - use cases, architecture, planning. For example, in Pat's taxonomy - taxation appears - not covered in use cases today, there has been discussion in the group about it to make it possible.
... That does not feel like a v1 priority, though.
... So, similarly, faster settlement is not a v1 thing, but we do have a task force for that to figure out what needs to be done. They should do stuff.
... In terms of recommending what needs to be standardized in August, that's not a v1 thing.
... To say "ok we're going to need this" - we need to model stuff so that we enable extensibility.
... We don't want to boil the ocean.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about basic technologies that need to be there - does that list exist?

<Ian> manu: Do we have a list of features / things that the system absolutely has to be there.

<Ian> ...I Have a list in my head.

<Ian> ...e.g., some form of digital signature format

<Ian> ...e.g., some form of browser-based API to initiate payment

Ian: also some kind of extensible data format.
... Extensible format is not yet a functional requirement.
... Do we want digital receipts in v1 - that is the kind of question I'm asking.
... I'm trying not to say we do or don't need it - maybe we should collate features - receipts, loyalty programs/vouchers, I don't know if digital signatures rise to feature or not, I can't tell. The ability to select payment instruments and invoke payment agents from the browser. It's a mix of features/functions - what's the minimal set that's necessary.
... The farther out we get, the more vague it'll be. The next round will include X, then Y. We have a list and incremental standardization goals.
... If you have it in your head, and you want to create a tiered view of features - that would be compelling.

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_June2015#Agenda_notes

Ian: The face-to-face agenda notes that we need to have a compelling Agenda... including roundtable.
... That page is very drafty... We are starting to put in things we want to talk about. Part 1 - getting to standards work - prioritization of existing use cases.
... If you were to have a strawman - what we need in v1 - that would be great input into that agenda

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk about needing v1 features before

manu: Are we trying to do a FPWD of Payment Agent before the June F2F?

Ian: It's fine to say "big picture" and "here's what we're going to do". We can do picture and then prioritization.
... Our timeline says FPWD in June - tentative, the 9th of June.
... I think it would be awesome if we do that - have a strong editor's draft - resolve at F2F to publish it.
... it may make the most sense to do that as a face-to-face decision - if it's controversial.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask about use case analysis that is still required

<Ian> AdrianHB: The fact that our use cases is broken into phases/subphases is partly analysis.

<Ian> ...can we split the work based on those phases?

AdrianHB: Two questions - You said that you and Pat have a lot of analysis you want to do on use cases. The fact that our use case document is broken out into phases and sub-phases - that's a pretty good bit of up-front analysis. First thing is - can we split work out on those phases? A group goes off and does Negotiation of Payment Terms.

<Ian> ...IE, start with Phase 1, then Phase 2, ....

AdrianHB: There is interaction across those groups - but breaking it out in that way feels natural. Common phases, common steps between phases.

Ian: I want to distinguish how we organize the work from the analysis - when I look at very first use case - someone goes to HobbyCo website one - I expect to sit down and say "What's implied by this". It assumes there is technology to display an offer - that already happens today, no new standards necessary. However, if we want a standard vocab expressible in other means for expression of an offer/invoice. What's the priority of producing a standard vocabulary fo

r an offer?

Ian: Benefit being search engines can find it - API might need it.
... So, group may say it's really important. vocabulary for offers not as important as one for receipts.

AdrianHB: I follow and agree - it feels a bit like boiling the ocean - we're trying to do that across all use cases... all in one go. You can ask those same questions, and will get the same answers in manageable blocks.
... Negotiation of payment terms - first step - look at offer - generic discovery of offer step - what's required for "offers to be discovered"?

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say we need v1 features before.

AdrianHB: We ask the same analytical question you're asking - how do we break this up so it doesn't feel like such a huge task. Can we partition the work.

<Ian> Manu: +1 to Adrian's thoughts...if you and Pat and come to a strawman proposal this week, then things are cool. If not, we need to distribute more.

<Ian> ...I think we need the v1 feature set in advance of the FTF.

<padler> That has been the focus.. is breaking it down so that we can distribute the work and move more quickly.

<Ian> ...the CG has been looking at this space for 3 years...so I think I have a good idea of a v1 feature set.

<Ian> ...I can try to back up why I think the feature set maps to the use cases.

<Ian> ...the approach that I would take is to take the document in its entirety at a high level

<Ian> ...e.g., writing something like "it's event to me that we need digital signatures on some of this data, otherwise merchants can't trust what the user is giving them."

<Ian> ...push payments in particular....

ian: If you can get this stuff in to do draft priortization before F2F - that's great.
... I didn't want it to be unmoored - "from these use cases we know we're going to need X" is good.
... There's kinda a flat list of features - tease out dependencies and priortization - that's good news.

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to try and map minimal v1 features to use cases. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-wpay-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Try and map minimal v1 features to use cases. [on Manu Sporny - due 2015-04-30].

<AdrianHB> Happy to assist on that ACTION

Agenda review

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_June2015#Agenda_notes

Adrian - if you could go at it from your angle - that would be great...

Ian: We could do prioritization of use cases as an hour long item?

Manu: I think we want to do prioritzation of use cases before F2F meeting.

Ian: Yes, we want to do as much as possible before F2F.

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to try and gather Prioritization of use cases before F2F. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-wpay-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Try and gather prioritization of use cases before f2f. [on Manu Sporny - due 2015-04-30].

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to ask about any brief list of topics for Monday?

dezell: Do these discussions merit any time on our Monday call?

Ian: I think going to the group on Monday w/ whatever Agenda we have in draft form and walking through it would be good.
... Let's go over what we have on Monday - Agenda notes.

dezell: ok, sounds good.

Ian: I do expect to have charter review - put an hour there - manifestation of what we mean by prioritization standards work...
... So, "we're going to standardize this" - next steps - can be provocative - credentials, blockchain, etc.
... New topics - like talking about settlement - value-add task force - go in and edit or send notes.
... Payment Agent and Architecture are the same -
... to respond to Adrian's question.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask about Payment Agent vs Architechture (are these the same?)

AdrianHB: We have a Payment Agent Task Force that's preparing a Payment Architecture document - is the Payment Agent a subset of that work.

Manu: Payment Agent is a subset of Payment Architecture.

dezell: People that joined group had a wallet in mind, we morphed it into Payment Agent because it did more than wallet - flow to be distributed in various ways, in various scenarios - payment agent is a term that we use to be "the software executing the value exchange on behalf of the payer/payee/payment service, etc."
... Some sort of vision to start WGs - payment agent is important.

AdrianHB: We need to get consensus on the definitions.

dezell: The call for payment agent is tomorrow - this would be a good topic for that call.

AdrianHB: Yes, I understand the definition - may not be obvious to other folks reading the documents.

<scribe> Meeting: WPIG Use Cases / Payment Agent Task Force

s/Topic: Manu on Payments 2015//

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Interest Group

23 Apr 2015

Attendees

Contents

Payments 2015 Conference Summary

Update on Payment Agent Status

work items (general)

Agenda review

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output