Terminology for payer/payee, user/merchant, debtor/creditor

[adrianhopebailie]

The flows task force have been working on defining a normalized set of terminology for the flows and have identified a particular set of terms that require normalization.

To date the WG has used the terms payer and payee to identify the sending and receiving parties in a payment respectively. Many discussions and documents use the terms user and merchant as these are the most common specializations of these roles however the ISO20022 terms are debtor and creditor.

[adrianhopebailie]

👍 for debtor and creditor

The group resolved to use ISO20022 terminology where appropriate. One caveat is that this langaue may be confusing in examples or specs so we should consider labels like merchant(debtor) website, user(creditor) payment app and user(creditor)'s browser in examples and use cases. I think we can get away with simply using debtor and creditor in normative sections of the spec.

[vkuntz]

+1 for debtor and creditor
Based on the approach of participants and business roles defined in ISO 20022, we will surely be able to map the specific terminology defined in the current flows with the Creditor/Debtor business roles.

[webpayments]

+1 for debtor and creditor. However, I also endorse Adrian's idea that we
use more common terms in labels for clarity to people who are not in the
industry.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Vincent Kuntz [email protected]
wrote:

+1 for debtor and creditor
Based on the approach of participants and business roles defined in ISO
20022, we will surely be able to map the specific terminology defined in
the current flows with the Creditor/Debtor business roles.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#59 (comment).

-Shane

[dlongley]

+1 to Shane's comments (Adrian's idea): #59 (comment)

[LaurentCastillo]

+1 for debtor / creditor associated with common terms

[mountainhippo]

I think debtor and creditor is ok, but will but a tough sell in communicating this to existing merchants and payment providers, who will talk in terms of payer/payee or more commonly merchant and customer.

So +1 to @adrianhopebailie 's suggestion to use labels for clarity.

[bifurcation]

I agree with @mountainhippo that debtor/creditor is likely to be pretty opaque for a certain slice of users. But the same will be true of any choice. The only way out here is to anchor in ISO 20022 and provide synonyms.

[ianbjacobs]

+1 to ISO 20022 plus synonyms.

[webpayments]

+1 to ISO 20022 plus synonyms.
Cyril VIGNET
+33622040856
+33158400234
[email protected]

De : ianbjacobs [mailto:[email protected]]
Envoyé : mercredi 20 janvier 2016 17:51
À : w3c/webpayments
Cc : webpayments
Objet : Re: [webpayments] Terminology for payer/payee, user/merchant, debtor/creditor (#59)

+1 to ISO 20022 plus synonyms.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/59#issuecomment-173269511.

[mattsaxon]

+1 to ISO20022 plus synonyms;

So some example will be;

Creditor [Merchant/Payee]
Creditor Agent [Merchant/Payee's Payment Service Provider(PSP)]
Debtor [Shopper/Payer]
Debtor Agent [Shopper/Payer's Payment Service Provider(PSP)]

If we can shoot for a consensus agreement to this on tomorrow call, we can update the suggestions in the Wiki that Laurent kindly drafted post the call
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/ISO-20022-definitions-mapping-on-flows

[msporny]

-1 I think this is a really bad idea. The audience for the spec (Web Developers) don't know what a 'creditor agent' or even what a 'creditor' really means... appending it to "merchant (creditor)" is not good either because it puts aliases beside every term in the spec, making the spec that much harder to read. I suggest we instead do use ISO20022, but put the alias in the definition of what a "merchant" or a "payee" is.

That way, you get to align w/ ISO20022, you use terminology that Web developers are somewhat familiar with, and you don't make the spec text any more dense than it has to be.

[adrianhopebailie]

Closing as the related proposal was resolved on the call on 28 January.