- From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:19:58 -0700
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
- Cc: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 6/13/16 1:45 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > The uses cases have swim-lane diagrams that show many of these > interactions over time. Would something like that be appropriate in > the architecture document? It appears that the versions Manu just linked have already incorporated this at: > we'll be discussing this > during the VCTF call tomorrow, so please make sure to read it before > tomorrow's call: > > http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/v4/ > > Don't miss the link to the detailed architecture diagram at the bottom: > > http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/v4/detailed/ > The one I imagined last night does also, but not in this way. It's possible that mine is preferable (or not), but it doesn't look like there's time to get it done and have people view it before tomorrow's discussion (without risk of giving me a heart attack :-) ). I expect I'll do it, but based on today's posts and these versions (/v4/ and the /detailed) I have new questions now -- about Repositories and Credentials -- that I'd like answered before I make an attempt. Steven > > Gregg Kellogg Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 13, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Steven Rowat >> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote: >> >>> On 6/13/16 9:19 AM, Dave Longley wrote: >>>> On 06/12/2016 07:55 PM, Steven Rowat wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/16 8:04 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote: Topic: >>>>> Discuss purpose of architecture proposal >>>>> >>>>> Adam Lake: >>>>> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/ Adam >>>>> Lake: Long form version, >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/ID2020DesignWorkshop/raw/master/topics-and-advance-readings/a-self-sovereign-identity-architecture.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Manu Sporny: We're putting this proposal together because a >>>>> number of people at W3C requested it. This arch doc is here >>>>> to quickly inform people about the type of arch we're >>>>> talking about. >>>> >>>> I'd like to suggest a change of the basic architecture 'block >>>> diagram'. >>>> >>>> I believe it will be easier to follow, and be more meaningful >>>> to a new reader, if it is presented as a 'flow diagram' that >>>> includes time. >>>> >>>> I suggest as an example of what I mean, that steps like the >>>> ones below, for a simple Credential creation and check, could >>>> be blocks, possibly set up left-to- right or top-to-bottom >>>> for the flow of time: >>> >>> Here's another take on the diagram. This may not be quite what >>> you're asking for -- but please provide feedback: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1M2cfMOCbXmMhg8Ar2YeCiRhMsJK-hzkCf1L_hJKMOHY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >>> Dave, >> Thanks for doing this. I'll note off the top that I woke up last >> night at 3 a.m. and had a vision of what the diagram could look >> like, with all the time-flow steps and taking into account the >> Entities (real and virtual) of: Subject, Holder, Issuer, >> Repository, and Relaying Party, and the Documents (fixed >> statements) of Claim and Credential. >> >> This took half an hour to take shape in my mind, and then I >> dictated a description of it. I'm committed to making my imagined >> version of the diagram myself (I've done a lot of computer >> technical drawing in my life, but none for several years, and >> would enjoy the challenge at this point.) >> >> About yours: it's nothing like mine at all. :-) >> >> Although technically interesting to have the diagram change and >> show steps in sequence like that, with due respect, I found it >> just as confusing. And I don't know if it's wise to introduce >> that technology anyway for a mission-critical diagram -- it may >> not work for some people. >> >> If I may, I'll make mine and send a link. Would a Drop-box link >> work? Or is sending as an attachment better? >> >> And I can do any common graphic file format -- png, svg, jpg, >> pdf, etc. If you have a preference let me know. >> >> I'm going to transcribe my last-night's dictation today and >> probably start making the diagram, but I might as well delay >> sending until I get the results of the voting for terminology, >> which I should use in it. >> >> Steven >> > >
Received on Monday, 13 June 2016 21:20:27 UTC