- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:10:53 -0400
- To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
- Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 06/20/2016 09:07 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > What my eyes are seeing looks integrated, straightforward and clear. > It's missing an enormous amount of detail that is important, of > course, but it seems to have been selective appropriately, if I > understand the goal of the slides (and I think I do, but that's > where my newness could be a detriment.) We have aggressively cut away things that we believe are not necessary to when making a high-level decision to start work or not. Hopefully we have cut away the right things. > I think I understand why the simplest form of the architecture > diagram is appropriate for this set of slides. Yes, we believe that most AC Reps want to see a general architecture diagram, but don't want to be bothered with the details (as it's the job of the Working Group to make sure to get that right). > The only point I'm a bit curious about is the reason for excluding > the more-detailed version of the architecture from one of the > referenced 'detail' documents? The theory goes that the details of having a repository and a verifier in the diagram wouldn't cause the W3C AC Rep to change their mind about the validity of the architecture and the resulting work at W3C. The details are important for building the system, but they are marginally useful for someone that is trying to decide if they should vote to start the work at W3C or not. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. JSON-LD Best Practice: Context Caching https://manu.sporny.org/2016/json-ld-context-caching/
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2016 01:11:23 UTC