See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Ian
Discussion topics -> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/DigitalOffers2016#Initial_Discussion_Topics
ltoth: After discussion with dezell we felt we needed 3 deliverables:
IJ: we definitely want implementation experience, but that's 9-12 months from now; see our draft timeline. I also think a draft charter is months and months away)
[Linda reviews the two multi-tender use cases]
dezell: Thank you, ltoth, for the
example
... We need perhaps to distinguish whether the offer comes from
a merchant or a distributor
IJ: How does the source of the coupon affect combining coupons and other forms of payment?
dezell: In the case of a
merchant, I can do things like change the transaction amount
before payment happens.
... in that case it's not really a multi-tender payment.
IJ: +1 to calling out explicitly that the use case of "changing transaction amount" as a result of a merchant offer is NOT part of multi-tender payment
(See the Web Payments Use Cases
IJ: The Web Payments Use Cases document may be interesting to look at, but it's not intended to be a model for all use case documents. It is the result of WPIG discussion and a format that we found useful for our needs.
<ShaneM> +1 on what Ian said - I wrote a lot of that stuff and it is unique to the W3C
IJ: +1 to not being formal yet; just writing down things as Linda has, and evolving from there.
ed: Can we take a step further than the example; do we want to enumerate systems or parties involved?
IJ: +1 to experimenting with what you feel would help achieve shared understanding
<Zakim> jheuer, you wanted to talk about security and cross-implications to how offers are communicated
jheuer: +1 to these
examples
... it's also good to give a feel for what it will feel like
when implemented.
... and ideally there are improvements from a variety of
viewpoints (e.g., merchant POV, consumer POV)
... I think, for example, that improved security would be an
improvement in these processes
dezell: +1 to Ian's
comments
... I think the main mission we are on at this stage of the
CG's life is to understand one another.
IJ: What's the diff between use case 1 and 2?
ltoth: 1 is online, 2 at a store
[IJ edits in real time; updates based on conversation]
ltoth: I'd like to allocate different topics to people who would volunteer to add the use cases
dezell: Any other variations for multi-tender to discuss today?
<dezell> Ian: the heart of the use case is "at the time of payment, I can choose and redeem an offer."
<dezell> Ian: question for the group - are there use cases with commonality in their flows. Factoring those out can really help.
<ShaneM> remember that stories like this have additional "seasoning" to make it interesting. Like a word problem from 7th grade math.
" During checkout, customers would like to choose combinations of payment methods and digital offers to "get the best deal."
Adam: How do we gather them?
(Everyone can write in the wiki!)
<dezell> Ian: logistical point - this wiki is available to the IG. We need to move this into CG space.
IJ: Should I move the stuff into the wiki??
<dezell> +1
<scribe> ACTION: Ian to create a CG wiki and migrate the IG stuff there (leaving a pointer from the IG wiki to the CG wiki) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-digitaloffers-minutes.html#action01]
[On whether wiki is ok for people]
ltoth: I think it's straightforward to use the wiki.
IJ: I can help people get started
ltoth: Any volunteers to write
down some use cases?
... or i can assign sections
<Adam> I want to participate in developing use cases
<ShaneM> I am interested in capturing some scenarios
jheuer: +1 to how Linda added her
use cases
... but I would like to be able to include use cases without
categorization
<ShaneM> +1 to adding a miscellaneous section so you can throw in whatever and we can categorze it later
+1 to misc
<Adam> what about a separate use cases section?
<Adam> +1 to misc section
<Kylie_Davies> Happy to submit into a misc section too for review during next call +1
<scribe> ACTION: Ian will add a misc section to the wiki in the CG's wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-digitaloffers-minutes.html#action02]
(I will migrate the material tomorrow morning)
dezell: Should people sign their use cases?
IJ: No objection; history records edits
dezell: May make it easier to find out who is leading the charge on a use case.
<Adam> Maybe we could by default add the use cases to the MISC section and decide on integrating them into the rest of the document as a group.
ltoth: Do we want to label what's draft and what's approved?
ed_: I will work on some use cases under user action
<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to ask what "approved" means
IJ: What does "approved" mean?
ltoth: I think it means "there is consensus on the language and to include it"
<dezell> IJ: I'll add a mini-policy section to the new CG wiki
(e.g., "don't edit those without group discussion")
Summary of who volunteered today to do some use cases:
* Ed
<ShaneM> Shane - I did
<Adam> I will write some use cases
<dezell> David will.
* Adam ("uncategorized")
<Kylie_Davies> Happy to try some misc ones
* Shane
* Joerg
* Kylie
* Dezell
<Adam> don't know yet, correct
* linda
shane: My plan is to go through the use cases we had for Verifiable Claims and extract some
ltoth: the WPIG is planning to
meet FTF on 22 March
... we can request some time then to meet FTF and move this
forward.
IJ: Did you have in mind e.g., 25% of time chaired by linda as a CG meeting?
dezell: Yes
<jheuer> I'd love to join but I can't make it this time
<scribe> ACTION: ltoth to query the CG for interest in a 22 March FTF meeting and others not yet in the CG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-digitaloffers-minutes.html#action03]
<ed_> +1
<dezell> 1
<jheuer> +1
<dezell> +1
<ShaneM> +1
<ltoth> +1
<Adam> +1 on F2F
<Amber_Walls_GS1US> +1; though have a conflict on that date
+1
<Kylie_Davies> Also love to join but don't think I can get funding to cross the pond
ltoth: Would like to meet once we have new use cases
(23 ok with me)
jheuer: Not available on
23rd
... I will try to interact by email
ed_: +1 to 30 Jan
<Kylie_Davies> 30th sounds good
dezell: I can meet on the 30th
RESOLUTION: Next call is 30 January