Web Payments IG Telcon
14 Mar 2016

<Ian> Did you send out the exceptional meeting link for today's call that I sent you?

<Ian> here is the info: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/wpay-20160314.ics

<ShaneM> arrgh

<dezell> scribe: manu

dezell: Verifiable claims is just coming to a boil..
... We won't have a meeting next week - that'll be spent in the AC meeting at W3C.
... Are there any comments before we move forward to our first Agenda item.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to introduce new member...

<Ian> (Welcome Todd!)

padler: I'd like to take a moment to invite new member to call - Todd Albers (sp?)

todd: Hi all, happy to be here from US Fed Minneapolis - trying to harmonize ISO20022 and this work - been in product management for 15+ years - commercial payments - commercial card payments.

dezell: welcome, Todd :)
... any other business before we get started with our first item?

Verifiable Claims Task Force

dezell: There has been some work on draft charter and use cases - these have had feedback from Ian and many other folks in VCTF - not as much from Web Payments IG - we'll have to look at that - timeframes are starting to firm up for how this work will proceed.
... we need to talk about how this work may or may not fit - how this work will work with this group...

Her is the latest Verfiable Claims editors draft charter: http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html

<dlongley> manu: The current status of this work is that during the face to face a couple weeks ago, the WPIG agreed that we should try and draft a charter and circulate informally for feedback from w3c members, interviewees, etc. Over the past couple weeks we've been working hard to get an editors draft of the charter to circulate at the AC meeting and then with the interviewees. We've had eight people review it completely and provide their comments over the weekend

<dlongley> . I hope I got everything in that we received before Saturday. The link is what we have right now and what we hope to start circulating to get feedback. Not asking for votes, just doing "are we in the right ballpark" before updating it.

Highly focused Verifiable Claims Use Cases: http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/

<dlongley> manu: Shane is working on the Use Cases document.

<Ian> (TODAY's meeting information is an EXCEPTION)

<Ian> (We return to the normal information next at the next meeting)

<dlongley> manu: Those have also had some review but not a ton, we're going to try and get more review on that document, but Shane has done an excellent job along with the other editors getting that document into shape. We're trying to very narrowly focus the use cases to go with this draft charter. There's where we are today with those documents. What we'd like to do next is circulate this among people and I'm hoping the discussion today would be about any concerns

<dlongley> people in the WPIG might have and also ask about how we circulate in at the AC meeting.

<dlongley> manu: Are there any questions/concerns?

<Ian> q

<dlongley> Ian: How do you envision sharing this during the AC meeting?

<dlongley> manu: I was going to send an email out to the AC forum and say this charter is out there and that we'll be at the AC meeting and can be pulled aside for hallway discussion. We also want to send personal emails to those that we know who have asked where this work is going and let them know we'll be available to chat about it.

<dlongley> manu: There is no space for it on the agenda so we'll just be socializing in hallway discussion.

<dlongley> Ian: I'm giving a talk on payments where I'll mention this taskforce so I can reinforce it there.

<dlongley> Ian: One thing we've not done yet it, typically when a charter is in development, the staff sends out advanced notice. This is unusual to raise awareness within the AC ... typically we dont' send advanced notice until the W3M says it's ok, but I think that's ok because this task force is well known.

<dlongley> Ian: I have a request to add a bit more information at the top of the charter to say this is for a discussion of the charter within the VCTF.

<Jurgen> I don't have the proper access code, could somebody send it to me

<Ian> "This charter is for discussion with in the Verifiable Claims Task Force of the Web Payments Interest Group. It is not yet under consideration by the W3C Membership."

<Ian> Participants of the Verifiable Claims Interest Group

<Jurgen> thank you dve, works

<github-bot> [13webpayments-ig] 15msporny pushed 1 new commit to 06gh-pages: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/c3db2c22480fe7a51bc79681368c88e21989bdb0

<github-bot> 13webpayments-ig/06gh-pages 14c3db2c2 15Manu Sporny: Add Ian's two suggestions to the charter text.

<dlongley> Ian: What is the timeline for talking to the interviewees and getting their feedback?

<dlongley> manu: The question to the WPIG today is everyone ok with sharing this with the AC and so forth. If they are, then tomorrow on the VCTF call we'll make sure everyone is ok and if both groups are ok, we'll send out emails (to interviewees) and see if anyone has comments, and so on. So that will be Wednesday at the latest, but hopefully by end of Tuesday, which is tomorrow.

<dlongley> dezell: After the call tomorrow, do you think we can send a reminder to this group for just a few hours before it gets sent out?

<dlongley> manu: We can send that out today and tell them to get comments/changes in before 3pm tomorrow.

<dlongley> manu: Would that be ok?

<dlongley> dezell: That's fine.

<dlongley> dezell: We may come back to this topic if Erik joins because I'd like to ask him, but this is last call for comments on VCTF.

<dlongley> dezell: Any objections?

<Ian> David: Any objections to sharing the charter?

<Ian> (No objections)

<kriske> +1

<ShaneM> +1

<jheuer> +1

<dlongley> dezell: Any support for sharing the charter?

<dlongley> +1

<padler> +1

<dezell> +1

<todd_albers> +1

<ltoth> +1

+1

<Ian> David: Please indicate support for sharing the charter

<Ian> +1

<kriske> +1

<phofmanntsy> +1

<AdrianHB> +1

RESOLUTION: Ok to share the charter => http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html

<Jurgen> +1

<dlongley> manu: So the next steps will be that we'll make sure the VCTF is fine with socializing the charter. I'll send out an email to WPIG for comments before 3pm ET tomorrow. We will then, at the end Tuesday/early Wednesday circulate charter to AC meeting, talking to some individuals we know will be there for hallway discussion. We'll send out emails to interviewees for informal review/comments.

ISO20022 Harmonization Task Force Update

dezell: We wanted to clarify where all this work is going and where we hope to get.

<kriske> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/ISO20022_Harmonization_Task_Force

kriske: A bit of context - David and I had a chat last week - how does this glossary relate to ISO20022. It's a natural part of the whole harmonization effort - this glossary, how web payments specific terminology applies to ISO20022 terminology. We wanted to update the harmonization charter page.
... We've added expected deliverables - how glossary should become a part of the harmonization effort. I want to have the IG look at the last bullet - the first thing - we'll take ownership of this glossary - haven't defined what ownership really means - we'll take current glossary as-is and make it a part of the deliverables of the IG.
... We'll maintain the glossary in some shape/form - second bullet point - not entirely sure on wording - " W3C will support a data repository for any generated ISO20022 definitions"
... If you look at that glossary - we have a web payments term, definition, reference to another repository in ISO20022 - these are living things, they evolve over time, we need to have the means of synchronizing these things. If W3C defines a glossary - references to ISO20022 should be persistent. They should point to the latest definition of ISO20022.
... Two questions 1) does the IG agree w/ us taking over ownership of glossary, 2) how should we find a way to make ISO20022 in a persistent way so that these things don't need to be versioned - someone doesn't need to maintain on a regular basis.

dezell: For the record, I did send email to Evert at Rabobank, he's been the owner of the glossary to this point - is he okay w/ this (no response yet, he's busy).
... We need to know how the IG feels about this - sort of want to start from the beginning - before we had a WG, the IG said it would be a good thing to have a glossary for the Web Payments work in general. It'll become more important to share that glossary among ecommerce, devices, etc.
... If we have these, it'll be handy to have all this in one place. The current work is in the WG - we're in luck, our two ISO20022 members are in the WG as well.
... So, we sort of have an automatic alignment there - question for IG - have we changed our minds?
... If not, Kris and Task Force are proposing more formal approach to glossary. How do people feel about that part?
... There were some experimental glossary attempts, one of them pretty good, do we want to go in that direction or some other direction? There are a lot of decision boxes.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to reflect on how glossary is used/updated.

<dlongley> manu: I think +1 for harmonization task force thinking of the glossary and mapping terms. The current decision of the WPWG was to adopt the Google/MSFT proposal which does not link to the live terms in the glossary at all.

<dlongley> manu: If we decide that the WPIG will maintain this glossary and we want to keep the specs linked, all the technical work has been done, we just need to make sure that we get that terminology into the WG spec at some point.

<dlongley> manu: It has also been raised that maybe the WPWG should be in charge of their own terminology and link back because maybe communications would slow down the WG. I think there are multiple ways to be flexible with the terminology while ensuring we're maintaining terminology across multiple groups.

<dlongley> manu: There is strong support from our standpoitn with the harmonization TF taking over the glossary and doing whatever they need to do for alignment with all these groups, etc. And we need to do dynamic integration of the glossary with the specs. Any make sure the editors of the spec in the WPWG can tweak the terms as they see fit. Put in a lightweight ability to update the glossary with review from the tF.

<AdrianHB> +1 for dynamic integration of glossary in WPWG specs and a lightweight process for WPWG spec editors to update glossary

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to ask a question about scope of glossary

padler: If we have critical mass over adoption of glossary, I think that's great. Scope of harmonization task force - glossary was trying to reconcile a number of different directories. There are other ones other than just ISO20022 - unless we have an ISO20022 one - it needs to be a bit broader.

<Ian> +1 that the goal is not ONLY ISO20022 harmozniation but includes it.

<padler> http://www.bis.org/cpmi/glossary_030301.pdf

<padler> http://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/glossary/html/glossp.en.html

padler: Some of the glossaries that we need to focus on BIS, European Central Bank, we don't want scope to be focused on one glossary. Just putting a couple of those links in here.

<padler> https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/resources/glossary/

padler: By way of reference, the Fed - Faster Payments, we picked out terms that were most important across all of those glossaries and posted those at this link above.
... Referencing those glossaries - having them do that, would like scope broader than ISO20022.

dezell: Maybe change the name to Industry Harmonization Task Force.

Ian: I think that the work of the IG was important to get us to a conversation about payments where we were doing our best to understand each other - all activity I'm aware of have happened in WG since October. I think that should drive where we end up with whatever terms fall under that discussion. My preference currently is to allow that work to proceed then back-port it to IG as soon as it appears that we have some stability.
... It's quite valuable to have a repository that everyone can turn to - the repository is no larger than the one in the WG spec - we shouldn't duplicate it - if it's larger than the one in the WG spec, we will want to find some way to talk about the status of the terms and where they are being worked on.
... I think the IG, should as it's doing generally, as it monitors ecosystem for terms and their meaning, should monitor WG - capture agreed upon meanings, and that should evolve over time. The act of porting in IG to some other group is useful when it can be done in partnership - but I think the larger role is monitor and capture shared understanding both outside and inside W3C.

kriske: Two points to make - I understand where he's coming from - glossary in ISO20022 harmonization, large part of what you find in glossary is a part of ISO20022 work anyway.
... Linking Web Payments specific terminology to ISO20022 terminology. The thing is, conceptually, the repository was designed to be a central point of access for many different vocabularies and dictionaries to link to. The idea being that if you have multiple vocabularies, and you link all terms to all other terms, it becomes complex to maintain. The idea is that ISO20022 could be the backbone that other vocabularies link to - definitions link to each other.

That would simplify the effort, bind different terms to different vocabularies.

kriske: That would relieve the pain - much of terminology in ECB is already in ISO20022 - I'm trying to make the case that some of that effort has already happened (to a certain extent).
... The second point - what Manu was saying - the Microsoft/Google proposal does not take into account anything from this effort, which makes me wonder how this should progress.
... This API will be defined by proprietary terminology and typing? Well, let the rest of the world deal with the mapping? Or is it the intent that we try to influence/explain how ISO20022 components map to that spec?

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to speak to back-porting

dezell: I wanted to partially address concerns that Ian raised - I think intent is to back port.
... Both Kris and Vincent participating in WG - that'll happen automatically, if something needs doing - it can be done in WG.
... Main reason for bringing this up - how glossary is going to fit into future path?

<AdrianHB> kriske - the WG specs must try to align with ISO20022 (note the currency and amount discussion that we had in the group and how the API was updated to match that resolution)

dezell: Do we need to fret about not doing work on glossary.
... I think we're up for doing work on glossary.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that we don't need to minimize, that's done automatically by the toolchain.

<dlongley> manu: Ian say something about we need to make sure that we're only using a subset of the glossary ...

<dlongley> Ian: I didn't say that.

<dlongley> Ian: What I said is that the WG is where much of the new terminology (all, currently) is happening. The WG can be the repository for the terms because there's no need to duplicate the work if all the terms are in the WG glossary. Assuming there's a superset of terms, the IG can monitor and track terminology of various groups.

<dlongley> manu: Commenting on the technical execution of that... we don't want to slow the WG down or make changing content in the glossary difficult. I don't see why the IG can't have a mandate for tending to the larger glossary and enabling the WG editors to update/add new terminology into the spec via PRs. As long as the IG stays on top of the PRs or we have an editor on the harmonization TF in the WG -- I see no reason why we can't have a single glossary used am

<dlongley> ong all the groups and make sure the editors can rapidly update it with a review by the harmonization TF to make sure nothing gets screwed up. All the tooling is in the place, all we're missing is telling the WG editors that they can update the glossary via PRs at any point.

<dlongley> manu: I'm proposing a way to move forward taking Ians concerns and Kris's and everyone else. It's pretty clear in my mind how to do this, but if it's not clear to others we should discuss those concerns.

<Erik> +1 Manu. The glossary is of benefit to far more than the WG

In other words, I think we're making this way more difficult than it needs to be (we're talking it to death). :P

<github-bot> [13webpayments-ig] 15halindrome pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/c2528dbb86b88c42d83047d981e82ff2b89910df

<github-bot> 13webpayments-ig/06master 14c2528db 15Shane McCarron: Added John Tibbetts scenario.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to talk about aggregate vocabulary we may need as IG as we cross payments/retail/identity/security use cases...

<github-bot> [13webpayments-ig] 15halindrome pushed 1 new commit to 06gh-pages: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/e9e15e0ff7734625ac9a4b75b2be32b5f3fbc76f

<github-bot> 13webpayments-ig/06gh-pages 14e9e15e0 15Shane McCarron: Pushed master over.

padler: I see us having to keep consistent glossary work done across multiple groups - a way in which we can include different industry sources - business to business stuff later on - map this in glossary - I like the idea of WG is pushing some of work forward, but I think as an IG we need to pull that back in into the IG and have a way to create a mechanism for all these different groups to collaborate on a different set of terminology. We want the specs to be co

nsistent.

padler: I think that's a big value here.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to share current understanding and to speak about updates in the IG

Ian: Kris, my understanding from the presentation at the IG meeting - in the flows task force, there is work going on to use ISO20022 terms in the flow descriptions.
... In the IG work, there would be collaboration to port back stuff to ISO20022 repository - I think that there will be some influence on the WG spec - I don't yet know what it looks like for that spec to adopt ISO20022 stuff. My understanding - the IG Task Force looks at what that looks like.
... I don't know if it means nothing will happen in WG - we can discuss further - I think I was happy to see the activity around flows as a good starting point - WG spec is at beginning of its life - full extent of ISO20022 will be on that spec, what is it?
... Regarding IG management of terminology - my view is that IG should be the instigator of updates to its work - as the WG spec evolves, the IG can work to keep the glossary up to date. I don't know if that has to happen in realtime. Around FPWD, we should expect a bunch of instability. Realtime updates to IG glossary? Not quite sure that responsibility should be in WG editors - if they want to do that, that's great. I don't know if any other group wants to push

- up to IG to have discussions and pull things into it's glossary. If we can get help from those editors, that would be great - I wouldn't ask them to do more than what they're doing on their specs.

dezell: I think all that sounds reasonable - there is a bigger picture here - while we may not need to engage in realtime, we do need to stay engaged. We do have some rails inbetween the two groups. They are doing work in the WG now - in the interim, barring any bigger plans on coordination, this'll get us to the next level. The Task Force can take this up and take it to the next level.
... Erik, are you here?

Erik: Hey, yes.

dezell: Erik, we took a vote earlier that the Verifiable Claims Task Force had work on the charter, they're informally ready to share that w/ the W3C Advisory Committee - we want feedback from you - come to Task Force meeting tomorrow.

Erik: I'll check my calendar.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that PRs are a forcing function to coordinate on glossary.

<Ian> -1 to forcing WG editors to issue pull requests to centralized glossary

<dlongley> manu: On how we actually implement this glossary, the way I was seeing it was that ... the glossary, this is basically an HTML file that acts as a forcing function to make sure the various groups are going to coordinate. So the only way you get new terms into a spec as an editor, whatever spec that is (browser API for web payments, VCTF, whatever). The only way is to edit that central document through a PR. The execution of that is really simple, just add/

<dlongley> modify something in that central document. We just need to make sure that's not a multiday process. I know Ian is -1'ing this, but the alternatives push us towards multiweek long discussions to figure out what is being backported to what and whatever.

<ShaneM> I have certainly see this work in other groups.

Ian: The IG is looking around at the whole world - I don't think it scales that the whole world will be issuing PRs.
... Terminology may get disrupted when there is a big review - low cost to look at spec every once in a while - if terminology has changed, update the central document. If they are not controversial, doc is updated. If they are controversial, term is reviewed.

dezell: I think that the Task Force has a way forward, does not imply anything w/ the latest discussion we're having here.
... We will have no meeting next week because of the AC meeting in Cambridge.

<Jurgen> quit