Digital Offers Task Force (of WPIG)

<dezell> Draft Charter: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/Loyalty2016

Linda; Feedback?

Manu: I suggest that we not say "mobile device" as a limiting phrase...but mention it as an example elsewhere in the charter

dezell: +1 to Manu's point
... Another comment on this charter is that it doesn't mention any relationship to payment (or coordination with any group)

alyver: +1 we should not call out specifically 'browser API'. I think we can perhaps focus but not limit ourselves to browser API
... such as HTTP API

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note data model vs. protocol and clearly specifying that and to note HTTP API is important as well? and to note Web Payments API as well

Manu: I have seen these problems be composed into model/syntax and separately a protocol.
... a digital offer format would be one set of work
... and the protocols for moving that around the ecosystem would be another set of work
... it seems like the charter proposes to do both
... are we coming up with an API for moving these offers around? or focusing on moving these offers over existing channels?
... I suggest we focus on "existing channels" rather than a new protocol.

<manu> Ian: Under goals, note that in W3C parlance, CGs don't produce standards, so please don't say standard.

<manu> Ian: The goal isn't to create a standard - I'd like to get a more clear idea of what the goal is... is it to make it easier to do things?

<manu> Ian: "Do digital offers" isn't narrow enough, where are we focusing? Maybe we can refine the goals. Not to produce something.

<manu> Ian: In scope of work, it says "all phases of the lifecycle are in scope" - again, it feels like what the CG should be focusing on, the goal of the group, is to understand what the key industry use cases are and what the Web needs to facilitate ecommerce around digital offers. Descriptions of the problem space, wrt. how W3C could standardize stuff.

<manu> Ian: It's a good idea, if the CG has an idea of what it wants to do, a CG can spec out some early ideas. Having created use cases, having done a gap analysis, until the problem statement is articulated, we don't know if that work is relevant. I'd like to focus on Problem Statement and then look at how group would focus on articulating use cases, and how the problem might be solved.

<alyver> +1

dezell: Ian's characterization of the trajectory is useful

Manu: Let me modify my feedback based on what Ian said.
... Ian's right that we need to build consensus around the actual problem.
... we've done this twice (payments cg, credentials cg)
... there are I think a set of things that the Membership expects from you before you start a WG
... It is useful to focus on problem statements - and then once you have the problem statement you talk about use cases
... and then you do a gap analysis and then you start talking about specific technologies
... the CG charter...we may just want to say that the mission is to identify problems in the ecosystem, to document use cases,

to produce gap analysis, and to potentially propose technical work that could be done by w3c

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to review what Credentials CG did, as an example.

Manu: I hesitate to get more specific than that.
... I recommend doing spec work in the same group that develops the preceding materials
... and the more general we can be with mission and goals, the better off we will be as long as we proceed in the

<dezell> I'd suggest that the role of all these things we're discussing be candidates to map to the proposed IG process, i.e. what problems are we solving WRT fulfilling the needs of the process, and make that part of the IG presentation at TPAC

Manu: order of problem statement, use cases, gap analysis, technology proposal

ltoth: Great feedback
... Next question is whether someone wants to edit or for me to take the input and revise

(+1 to Linda revising!)

<dezell> (+1 to Linda revising!)

<manu> Ian: From a resource perspective, it would be good for Linda to do it.

<manu> Ian: We all have the ability to edit, if you're taking ownership of it and synthesizing, please do.

Mission: how we would like the world to be better

<manu> Ian: I don't hink we've articulated that yet.

<manu> Ian: I can see statements about "mobile devices" being useful

<manu> Ian: The world would be better if you could use digital coupons on mobile devices.

<manu> Ian: The world would be better if, at the technology level, retailers could use the same standards to accept coupons.

<manu> Ian: This is sort of what we want to happen, it ties into benefits, it doesn't refer to things like ... the mission is about "the world", the scope is about "how we're limiting ourselves". So scope, we're not looking at coupon identifiers, we're not looking at XYZ. The deliverables are the things we're going to create to support our mission.

<manu> +1 to that approach.

Manu: +1 to that breakdown and approach
... I hesitate to narrow our scope too much
... I don't think we will get close to barcodes, so fine to identify those
... that is: where there would be a clear conflict
... the end goal is to convince the W3C ecosystem (at some point) that a standardization effort is worthwhile

See => https://github.com/w3c/standards-track/blob/master/bp.md

IJ: I think that we should list a few problems that are the kind we want to look at to get more attention
... using industry-recognized terms or phrases

dezell: We can make explicit in the charter that we are looking at a broad set of use cases. (e.g., not just petroleum)

IJ: That feels like a good scope statement

<manu> Ian: That sounds like a good scope statement

<manu> Ian: To say, "this is for everybody", there is a trade-off - if you say we're going to do a new number system, then you may only have a few people sign up, but if you're broader you may get more people from industry to sign up, so there's a balance you're trying to strike.

Bob: +1 to what IJ is saying about scope
... we need to be clear about what's going on, what the use cases are, and the gap analysis.
... people will say "Isn't this already being done?"
... "what exactly are you trying to accomplish?"

<manu> Ian: That's another interesting comment - the charter currently doesn't have a hook for Liaisons. If that's appropriate, that could be added.

<manu> Ian: We should have discussions with industry bodies in this space so we're aware of existing work and anything we'd do would interoperate. Not commit to anything, but be sure to not lay claim to their work.

<manu> Linda: Is that Liaisons or Scope?

<manu> Ian: The group is investigating, so we should talk to those organizations, seems premature to talk about Liaisons, don't know which groups we're going to reach out and work with. If we did know, it becomes important to reach out to them, but it may be that we don't know yet because we haven't investigated enough.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note JICC and other coupon industry groups as Liaisons

Manu: I would push back on that...I think we do know that it will involve GS1 and JICC
... some of us have a problem statement in mind and then it will be clear that some liaisons are required

<manu> Ian: Once we have a more clear problem statement and once there is consensus around the problem statement, it'll then be clear that those are organizations that we should coordinate with. This CG charter can be changed/added - if two groups agree to work together, but us calling them out as Liaison without them knowing about it, maybe we call them out as people we want to work with, but don't say they're liaisons yet.

brian: digital offers are done today...early efforts in the CG should identify what's being done today
... I agree that a reference to them as relevant parties is sufficient

<manu> Linda: How should we coordinate on this?

<dezell> +1 to using the IG list

<manu> Ian: With respect to coordination, perhaps we can use the IG list?

[discussion of public ig list as thread]

<manu> manu: +1 to use of IG mailing list

dezell: I think you will get at least good feedback

<bob> Bob Burke is not a member

<manu> Ian: Who is here that's not a W3C member yet?

https://www.w3.org/accounts/request

<dezell> ACTION: to nominate bob and brian [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-wpay-digitaloffers-minutes.html#action01]

<dezell> +1 to publishing

<alyver> +1

IJ: Should we publish minutes of the meeting to the WPIG?

+1

<alyver> +1

linda: +1

<manu> Ian: Another process question, should we publish the minutes to the WPIG?

<manu> manu: +1 to publishing minutes

<manu> manu: to the IG mailing list

outreach to others

<manu> Ian: Letter was a starting point - anything wrong/offensive/mischaracterized?

<dezell> +1 to the letter

<manu> Ian: Initial plan is to discuss industry needs

<manu> Ian: If there are problems, or seems fine as a template, then we can go from there.

Any comments on the template?

dezell: LGTM

IJ: I imagined this flow:

- we sign up

- we review the signups at next meeting

- we decide a timetable for sending invitations

- we invite people to a meeting or 2 pre pac

- AT TPAC the IG meets and discusses the charter

- After TPAC we launch the CG and people join (including those who expressed interest from our outreach)

Next call

ltoth: Proposed noon ET on 26 Aug

ed: +1

ian: +1

<dezell> +1

<alyver> +1

<bob> Friday is good for me

(Ed: heads-up on typo in ian's template)

dezell: home work is for people to add people to the google doc and

RESOLUTION: Next meting 26 August at noon ET

<scribe> ACTION: Linda will set up a goto meeting (not Ian) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-wpay-digitaloffers-minutes.html#action03]