13:25:06 RRSAgent has joined #wpay 13:25:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/08/07-wpay-irc 13:25:08 Zakim has joined #wpay 13:25:20 Meeting: Web Payments IG Payment Architecture Telecon 13:25:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:25:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/07-wpay-minutes.html manu 13:25:59 agenda+ Capabilities: Front Matter 13:26:18 agenda+ Security Core 13:26:23 agenda+ Identity and Credentials 13:26:29 agenda+ Accounts and Settlement 13:26:42 agenda+ Payments and Exchange 13:26:42 agenda+ Commerce 13:28:25 Jiangtao_jia has joined #wpay 13:28:35 present+ Ian 13:30:18 jheuer has joined #wpay 13:31:20 present+ Pat 13:31:23 present+ Manu 13:32:06 DJackson has joined #wpay 13:32:12 padler has joined #wpay 13:34:31 present+ jheuer 13:34:41 present+ dezell 13:34:46 github-bot has joined #wpay 13:34:46 [13webpayments-ig] 15ianbjacobs pushed 1 new commit to 06gh-pages: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/ba6ab5c90f243e0a61d86baee2aa02a7e009f4c2 13:34:46 13webpayments-ig/06gh-pages 14ba6ab5c 15Ian Jacobs: Merge branch 'master' into gh-pages 13:34:47 github-bot has left #wpay 13:35:46 Present+ DavidJ 13:36:03 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Aug/0036.html 13:36:11 Ryladog has joined #wpay 13:37:01 scribe: Ian 13:37:07 *tuoched the wrong button - I am back again 13:37:15 zakim, take up agendum 1 13:37:15 agendum 1. "Capabilities: Front Matter" taken up [from manu] 13:37:42 -> https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html Capabilities 13:37:55 Manu: I did some markup cleanup last night; should look like other docs 13:38:32 Note: We'll use w3c.github.io as staging for publications henceforth (but still need to confirm with sysreq) 13:38:33 http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html#introduction 13:38:54 q+ for a quick high-level comment 13:39:04 ack Ian 13:39:04 Ian, you wanted to discuss a quick high-level comment 13:39:39 Ian: High level comment so we are most effective over next 6 weeks on this document if this is the focus - two emphases over the next few weeks - build face-to-face agenda, and the other is the capabilities document. 13:39:47 REMINDER: to please change my affiliation from W3C Invited Expert to Knowbility 13:39:50 Ian: I see Thu/Fri meeting being a part of that 13:40:30 q+ to discuss framing of the document 13:40:33 Ian: We want to bring all of this stuff into a shared picture of architecture - one way to think about working on this document is - what will help make it useful for that. 13:41:10 Ian: If that is going to be the technical vision - we may not need to be focusing on phase 3 things, but if we really need the WG's feedback on something, let's make sure to frame things in that way. 13:41:13 ack padler 13:41:13 padler, you wanted to discuss framing of the document 13:41:21 pat: Thanks to Manu for editing 13:41:38 ..the only comment to Ian's framing on the usage of the document 13:41:46 ...I am hoping to stay away from the word "architecture" 13:41:54 ...we are moving away from that and two a set of capabilities 13:42:03 ...the capabilities are to provide context across WGs 13:42:24 ...so, for example, an identity WG could see how their work would fit into the payments work. 13:42:32 ...it is not intended to be a detailed architecture 13:42:43 ...the document should be broader than that. 13:42:45 q+ 13:42:55 ack Ian 13:43:01 github-bot has joined #wpay 13:43:01 [13webpayments-ig] 15msporny pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/1f433881472d7bde48a4d5bbdd828d7ca0cace99 13:43:01 13webpayments-ig/06master 141f43388 15Manu Sporny: Change Katie's affiliation to Knowability. 13:43:02 github-bot has left #wpay 13:43:45 Ian: What make the capabilities not an architecture? If there is a series of things that make payments possible - it feels close to an architecture. 13:44:08 Ian: It's not that they describe a flow, but they do enable something to happen - don't want to spend a ton of time on this, but raised high-level point so I know how to talk about it. 13:44:10 I note that this document is using British English (eg Standardised), I think the norm for W3C docs is American English 13:45:03 Ian: "We'll show the Working Group something - see how their work can be a part of the payments group story" - Some are bound to payments, others are bound to security and we need them to see what we need. Slightly different view of how they fit in - they're not assigned a piece of this stuff, slightly broader set of things. I can live with either. 13:45:53 padler: People are wondering why the IG would be discussing "architecture"; I think people think that an architecture is more detailed/technical 13:46:04 ...so we are keeping this generally at a broad set of capabilities. 13:46:19 ...some might touch on architecture (e.g., how does loyalty fit in) 13:46:44 ...this is a way for us to provide overall context on capabilities and how they fit together 13:46:55 q+ to weigh in 13:46:58 ack manu 13:46:58 manu, you wanted to weigh in 13:46:58 ...but "architecture" has given people an impression (perhaps too narrow) of our goals for the document 13:47:11 manu: I think I agree with Pat on what the document's goal is. 13:47:46 ...calling something an architecture may tend to make it too rigid. Although Web architecture is not overly rigid. But my concern for "payments architecture" it may be perceived as more rigid than what we intend. 13:47:54 +1 to Manu's observation... 13:47:54 ...rather, this document is a collection of things we need the system to do. 13:48:13 ...not a full architectural discussion because it does not say in detail how the pieces fit together or specific messages that flow 13:48:16 q+ to talk about our narrative 13:48:41 ...rather we can talk about capabilities as "here's what we think we need, but it's not clear to us yet how it all fits together." 13:48:44 shepazu has joined #wpay 13:49:29 editorial: "This document describes aset" -> "This document describes a set" 13:49:33 ack dezell 13:49:33 dezell, you wanted to talk about our narrative 13:49:45 [IJ thinks we may need a bit more explanation of the document up front; no proposal yet] 13:50:26 dezell: Pretty much agree with Manu 13:50:34 q+ 13:50:52 q+ to wonder if we can table the broader discussion and think about it for the next week or so. 13:50:52 q+ to talk about framing current work in the sections of the document 13:50:57 ...I think the capabilities doc is a useful tool the way we are developing it. 13:50:57 ack Ryladog 13:52:34 ack manu 13:52:34 manu, you wanted to wonder if we can table the broader discussion and think about it for the next week or so. 13:52:38 Ryladog: Want to avoid giving people impression things are set in stone. 13:53:01 Manu: We don't yet have an architecture in mind. 13:53:40 http://www.w3.org/2001/07/19-tag 13:54:53 q+ to respond to TAG. 13:55:14 q- 13:55:24 ack padler 13:55:24 padler, you wanted to talk about framing current work in the sections of the document 13:55:37 Ian: I wanted to know what we are trying to accomplish so I know how to contribute over the next 6 weeks 13:55:41 Ian: Ok, I think I have what I need to be able to contribute to the document. 13:56:11 padler: I think the doc also highlights the work going on in this space 13:56:53 ..and thus serves as a map so people don't overlap 13:56:56 http://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html 13:57:43 q+ to move discussion back to document 13:58:02 padler: Our goal is in some sense to give people a high-level picture. 13:58:21 ack manu 13:58:21 manu, you wanted to move discussion back to document 13:58:21 ...stewardship role of the IG; continuous context 13:58:47 Ian: We should reflect this understanding in the document - the document needs more framing. 13:58:59 +1 to updating goals of the document.. 13:59:14 pat can volunteer to take the intro... 13:59:14 Manu: Who wants to write the intro? 13:59:17 http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html#introduction 13:59:26 Action: Pat to write the intro to the capabilities doc 13:59:26 Error finding 'Pat'. You can review and register nicknames at . 13:59:31 Action: paler to write the intro to the capabilities doc 13:59:31 Error finding 'paler'. You can review and register nicknames at . 13:59:36 Action: padler to write the intro to the capabilities doc 13:59:36 Created ACTION-131 - Write the intro to the capabilities doc [on Patrick Adler - due 2015-08-14]. 14:00:12 (IJ notes that we should discuss updating the glossary AFTER the AC review, since we might make changes based on AC review) 14:00:17 http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html#overview-of-capabilities 14:00:45 Manu: It's not clear in 3 what the big lists ("Capabilities") are doing. 14:01:56 padler: I think the front matter of section 3 needs to say "payments is a big space. so the IG has attempted to simplify and compartmentalize capabilities" 14:02:11 ...there used to be a simple diagram 14:02:46 ...agree that the long Capabilities lists hit people with a lot (and too soon) 14:03:40 Ian: This seems like a good exercise to test the thinking - tying the goals back to the use cases - does our model hold - do all these capability blocks go somewhere? 14:04:03 Ian: Like we discussed before, you can go one way or the other - each capability block says what group it belongs to - for comms it might not be necessary. 14:04:58 [Pat and Manu will take a stab at cleaning this up] 14:05:38 Ian: I propose we use the definition from the charter and put it in the terminology section and modify the definition based on what's there. 14:05:47 q? 14:06:04 q+ 14:06:06 q+ 14:06:10 ack padler 14:06:47 padler: feels to me like we need to finish the capabilities section first. 14:07:01 ...if we are still focusing on digital wallets, then we might find we need to define them 14:07:30 ack Ian 14:07:30 ..more thought needs to go into how to place wallets in the doc 14:08:04 Ian: I'm looking at section 4 and not sure I understand its role in the document. I understand 3, here's a small set of groupings that cover everything. 14:08:20 Ian: Then 5 says - now that you have the groupings, we can go into more detail - I get that. 14:08:29 Ian: But inbetween, there is this interaction wheel, it doesn't make sense there. 14:08:55 Ian: The particular diagramming approach may be useful (I don't know yet) as the super clear way to describe flows. I don't think it is conveying anything useful yet between 3 and 5. 14:08:57 +1, this section belongs in an architecture or process flow section 14:09:26 Ian: One possibility is - we can't do 5 unless we've explicitly said who the parties are - because 5 depends so heavily on it - what their responsibilities are are critical to understanding capabilities. 14:09:41 Ian: It feels much closer to flow, which we said is not a key part of capabilities, it feels out of place here. 14:09:46 q+ 14:09:46 manu: +1 to Ian. 14:09:49 ack DJackson 14:10:03 DJackson: I agree with Ian. Seems like it is about flow or architecture. 14:10:08 DJackson: I agree, it does seem out of context - it belongs in a section on flow. 14:10:09 q+ 14:10:20 DJackson: If you are defining the entities - they're defined elsewhere in the document. 14:11:08 padler: There are a number of scenarios where the whole set of interactions happens very quickly (matter of seconds or minutes) 14:11:16 ...and things can be described in a single flow. 14:11:31 ...but there are other scenarios where the interactions last much longer, especially when you introduce commerce elements 14:11:45 ...such as when a user walks into a store and their mobile device is recognized by the store's system and they receive offers on the phone 14:12:03 ...they may or may not stay in the store and make a payment....this is part of the "offer" phase. 14:12:25 ...but there are other cases with existing offers (e.g., coupon I previously got) and I'm leveraging it now when I go online to use that coupon that I had received. 14:12:39 ...so the purpose of these circles was intended to depict that variety of flows 14:12:47 ...multiparty interactions 14:13:03 q+ 14:13:07 ack manu 14:13:30 padler: I also agree with Ian that doesn't fit in this context. 14:13:34 manu: Three issues: 14:13:44 ...1) seems out of place (thought it didn't seem that way before) 14:13:53 +1 to readability... 14:13:56 ...2) Images are big and hard to understand them 14:14:04 ...want to be able to take in the picture all at once 14:14:07 originally it was a bunch of images on one line.. 14:14:33 ...3) Payments stuff is unique....other specs talk about protocols and you don't usually think of message transactions outside of, say client/server interactions 14:14:43 Boleto use case is a really good example of this.. 14:14:57 q+ to propose an approach 14:15:08 ....4) Once we start talking about flow we are getting into architecture. 14:15:30 ...so I think we may want to park it elsewhere. 14:15:58 ack Ian 14:15:58 Ian, you wanted to propose an approach 14:16:09 Ian: I have a counter proposal / extension 14:16:14 http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150416/#additional-examples-of-the-payment-phases 14:16:32 Ian: We have payment phases - these diagrams might usefully augment the use cases document. 14:17:05 Ian: I could see these interaction wheels in the use cases document. 14:17:15 Ian: So, that seems to be at the same conceptual level 14:17:40 Ian: I don't know - maybe we don't talk about financial institutions - feels closer to those descriptions than the ones in the capabilities documents. 14:17:53 Ian: Maybe we need to pair them more with use cases 14:17:58 q+ to suggest that it may be framing of the title too.. 14:18:00 manu: +1 to pairing them w/ use cases. 14:18:12 +1 to pairin w use cases 14:18:27 manu: -1 for volunteering to do that :P 14:18:34 ack padler 14:18:34 padler, you wanted to suggest that it may be framing of the title too.. 14:18:41 [IJ thinks it's too low-level for use cases, but it's closer] 14:19:14 padler: I agree that we need to change the section. I do think that the way Manu was describing it, and the discussion around how payments broadly are a series of sequential, asynchronous interactions. 14:19:21 ...would be good to have some examples somewhere in the document. 14:19:36 (I still think that we don't need those to talk about ***capabilities***) 14:19:48 padler: Payments can be expressed as a series of interactions among parties 14:20:09 ...capabilities should be expressed as interaction between two parties 14:20:35 ...so it will be important to talk about identity between payer/payee and that will be different from what identity means between other parties. 14:20:53 IJ: Isn't that already inherent in 5? 14:21:11 padler: We have tried to do that. 14:21:56 q+ 14:22:03 ack Ian 14:22:19 Ian: My proposal - let's remove diagrams for now - when we talk about these things, it's good to be clear about who is doing what. 14:22:31 Ian: The beginning of section 5 should say a word about the rest of section 5 - series of bullets 14:22:35 +1 to including in section 5... 14:23:05 parties of the interaction would be more helpful.. 14:23:20 Ian: Where possible we try to define clearly - when we talk about an interaction, we try to define who the parties to a transaction are. We want to mention what we think is relevant technology. That list is likely to change over time. We also think that you shouldn't infer that the fact that we talk about something in one capability that it must be done in the same way elsewhere. 14:23:41 q+ to cover rest of editorial work. 14:23:57 Ian: I'd rather do this as a lightweight set of annotations at first. 14:24:29 Ian: I do think saying, as a bullet point, we describe transactions as clearly identifying the parties - but they are mixing up flow and use cases with the mere fact of identifying parties in the transaction. 14:24:36 Ian: Chuck them and create an intro. 14:24:38 q? 14:24:38 ack m 14:24:39 manu, you wanted to cover rest of editorial work. 14:24:46 manu: Lots to cover still! 14:24:49 ...here's my summary 14:24:51 * 5.1 Security Core 14:24:51 * Write introduction 14:24:51 * Write key concepts 14:24:51 * 5.2 Identity and Credentials 14:24:52 * Write introduction 14:24:53 * Write key concepts 14:24:54 * 5.3 Accounts and Settlement 14:24:56 * Write entire section 14:24:58 * 5.4 Payments and Exchange 14:25:00 * Write introduction 14:25:02 * Write key concepts 14:25:04 * 5.5 Commerce 14:25:06 * Write introductions for offers, discounts, coupons, invoices, 14:25:08 receipts, loyalty 14:25:12 * Write key concepts 14:25:17 Manu: In each section we are missing introductory material and key concepts 14:25:31 ...in some cases (e.g., accounts and settlements) it's a big section and nothing's there yet 14:25:42 (Maybe Adrian would be best person to work on that) 14:25:54 q+ to ask if the v2 of the capabilities sections were updated.. 14:25:58 ...we need volunteers to divid and conquer 14:26:00 ack padler 14:26:00 padler, you wanted to ask if the v2 of the capabilities sections were updated.. 14:26:01 ack padler 14:26:19 padler: I need also to review the groups themselves which we updated after the June meeting. 14:26:21 padler: I need to go back and enhance - coming out of June F2F - we updated capabilities groups, not certain those didn't get back into the document. 14:28:26 Manu: I can do identity. 14:28:36 ACTION: dezell to write introduction to "commerce" section 14:28:36 Created ACTION-132 - Write introduction to "commerce" section [on David Ezell - due 2015-08-14]. 14:28:51 ACTION: Manu to write identity/credentials intro to capabilities document 14:28:51 Created ACTION-133 - Write identity/credentials intro to capabilities document [on Manu Sporny - due 2015-08-14]. 14:28:56 here's the latest on the groupings... https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/UpdatedCapabilityGroups 14:29:01 ACTION: Manu to write security core intro to capabilities document 14:29:01 Created ACTION-134 - Write security core intro to capabilities document [on Manu Sporny - due 2015-08-14]. 14:30:31 rrsagent, make minutes 14:30:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/07-wpay-minutes.html Ian 14:30:35 rrsagent, set logs member 14:31:30 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:31:30 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/07-wpay-minutes.html manu 14:31:44 rrsagent, make logs public 14:31:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:31:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/07-wpay-minutes.html manu 14:32:29 Chair: Everyone! 14:32:37 Present+ Katie 14:33:39 i/It's not clear in 3 what/Topic: Capabilities in Context/ 14:34:48 i/Lots to cover still/Topic: Detail sections/ 14:34:51 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:34:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/07-wpay-minutes.html manu 14:52:01 dbaron has joined #wpay 16:00:37 dsr has joined #wpay 18:26:21 yaso has joined #wpay 19:17:51 dbaron has joined #wpay