[MINUTES] CCG VCALM 2025-11-04

Here's a summary of the CCG VCALM meeting on November 4, 2025:

*Meeting Summary*

The meeting covered the following topics:

   - *Community Updates:*
      - Dave Longley announced the upcoming TPAC (week-long event) in Kobe,
      Japan, and mentioned a meeting to discuss the next BCWG charter,
including
      the VCOM specification.
   - *Open PRs Review:*
      - PR 567 was merged after editorial improvements.
      - PR to add an optional exchange step callback feature was ready for
      merge after Mono applied suggestions.
      - A merge conflict was identified, and the team needed to choose the
      older version. The addition of callback data on the workflow was deemed
      correct.
   - *Open Issues Review:*
      - The team discussed merging the verifiable presentation request
      specification with the VCOM.
      - An issue about the VPR inquiry by example changing to an object was
      discussed, with Dave Longley clarifying that it is backwards compatible.
      The team decided to update examples.
      - The team reviewed a new issue about adding a sequence diagram.

*Key Points*

   - PR 567 was merged.
   - The team decided to handle merge conflicts in the open PRs.
   - The verifiable presentation request specification will be merged with
   the VCOM.
   - The discussion on the VPR inquiry by example changing to an object.
   - The team discussed the addition of a sequence diagram and the need to
   show state changes within the diagram.
   - The team discussed colors and accessibility on the diagrams.
   - One issue was closed.
   - The next meeting will be on the 18th of November.

Text: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2025-11-04.md

Video: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2025-11-04.mp4
*CCG VCALM - 2025/11/04 14:58 EST - Transcript* *Attendees*

Dave Longley, Dmitri Zagidulin, Joe Andrieu, John's Notetaker, Kayode
Ezike, Parth Bhatt, Patrick St-Louis, Ted Thibodeau Jr
*Transcript*

Patrick St-Louis: Hey, good afternoon.

Dave Longley: Hey

Parth Bhatt: Hello.

Patrick St-Louis: Just going to wait a couple more minutes.

Patrick St-Louis: Just going to wait two more minutes and…

Dmitri Zagidulin: Hello.

Patrick St-Louis: get started.

Patrick St-Louis: Hey Joe and…

Joe Andrieu: Howdy.

Kayode Ezike: Everything.

Patrick St-Louis: right, I think we can get started Welcome to the CTG VCOM
call for the 4th of November 2025. So today on the agenda, nothing out of
the ordinary. We're going to get started with community updates,
announcements, or proposed change to the agenda. After which we're going to
have a look at the open PRs. I think there's two pending PRs and review the
pending issues.

Patrick St-Louis: I might add an item to the agenda. I think I saw some
message around merging the verifiable presentation request specification
with the VCON specification. So we can just do a little loop on that item.
any interesting community updates that anyone want to share?
00:05:00

Dave Longley: I guess the only thing to mention is TPback is happening next
week. Been mentioning that on previous calls. I think there will be a
meeting there to discuss the next BCWG charter and there's already some
proposed recharter in the works that would include the work that's been
incubated in the CCG including the VCOM specification.

Dave Longley: So if anybody's going to be at TAC or joining remotely, it's
in Coobe Japan. So it's may not work for your time zone, but putting that
out there.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, that's very Thank you for the reminder.

Patrick St-Louis: You is a week-long event or it's only one specific day?

Dave Longley:

Dave Longley: It is a week-long event. There are meetings on Monday
scheduled meetings on Monday and Thursday and Friday and Wednesday is sort
of like an unconference day where people make proposed sessions and you go
around and join whatever you can, make time to join. there's usually too
much to join. You end up missing some things. You got to catch up with
other people to find out what you missed.

Patrick St-Louis: Right. All the look forward to hearing the outcome of
TPAC this time and…

Patrick St-Louis: I'm sure we'll have plenty of updates in the weeks to
follow.

Patrick St-Louis: Any other announcement of interest? If not, we can get
started with the opens PR So,…

Patrick St-Louis: let's start with 567. is Eric on the call today? I don't
think he was there last week.

Joe Andrieu: He is not.

Joe Andrieu: He's still traveling.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, thank you. there is some edit from head

Patrick St-Louis: which I believe is not on the call either today.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I think Eric's request was for us to drive this
forward. If we think that Ted's changes here are just editorial and improve
it,…

Dave Longley: which I think that's probably the case,…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Yeah,…

Dave Longley: we could probably move forward and agree to merge this

Patrick St-Louis: just reading through this one.

Joe Andrieu: plus one.

Joe Andrieu: And it seems like a friendly improvement.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I think it seems to just mention that this is just
an example and any objection to committing this going once, twice?

Patrick St-Louis: Let's commit this update. And let's do squash and merge.
I'm just going to wait for this to finish. while this job is running, we're
going to have a look at the other one, but this one I'm going to come back
and merge add an optional exchange step call back feature. this has been
open for two weeks. Open the issue quickly. Okay, this is an issue that
dates from a couple years.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, Dave. There was some merge conflict.

Dave Longley: So, I think all we're waiting on with this one is for Mono to
apply some suggestions. so I think we might just be held up on that. So, I
think there was some discussion. Mario asked for some more specific stuff.
yeah, I wonder…
00:10:00

Dave Longley: if the stuff that was suggested got merged. Yeah, I think
this callback one is actually ready.

Patrick St-Louis: And I'm assuming there's going to be a few more merge
conflict after this.

Patrick St-Louis: I'm going to go ahead and merge the other PR we were just
looking at. Okay.

Dave Longley: I think everything got merged. So we just have a merge
conflict problem. But I think we're ready.

Patrick St-Louis: Is it? what do we want to do here?

Patrick St-Louis: Current change. Yeah, I think we just do current change
here.

Dave Longley: So this looks like there was a PR that removed some old
endpoint that we've talked about a couple times on the call called
exchanges and…

Dave Longley: I think that got into conflict with this one. That is
probably true. Yep.

Patrick St-Louis: I think that was the only one. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes. Coyote.

Kayode Ezike: I was going to say you might just want to confirm that. I
think the main thing that was suggested was the call backs with the F at
the end slash and ID just to be sure that he actually addressed them. sure
if I saw the actual suggestions that were requested, but yeah,…

Patrick St-Louis: with a call back ID.

Kayode Ezike: in the OAS file even just like commit history. just to be
sure that all the stuff is actually applied.

Dave Longley: So I think on 2309 is one place…

Kayode Ezike: Okay. Yeah.

Dave Longley: where it shows up and then down there on 649. So I think we
got it. yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, it's been changed for local call back ID. I think
that's fine.

Dave Longley: And just a quick note, I think we usually rebase if all the
commits look good. as opposed to squashing.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. …

Patrick St-Louis: do we want to have this camel case to be consistent or I
would think so.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I would think so if that's not Yeah, it should be
consistent in the file.

Patrick St-Louis: Small change. Yeah.

Kayode Ezike: That's also I think an old endpoint. 2, right?

Dave Longley: I don't think yeah. Maybe this one actually is as well.

Kayode Ezike: At the beginning of it.

Dave Longley: Yeah, because it's an old endpoint. If we also see in here
the workflows endpoint that has exchanges on the end. Yeah, that this is
readding what we just made sure to remove. exchanges shouldn't be there. So
I think we could delete that whole section and the one after it. I think
when whatever happened with that yeah I would say all that needs to go. So
maybe the merge conflict we needed to choose the older version instead of
the newer version.

Patrick St-Louis: so it's looking now. So we have call backs. How could we
see the preview? I thought there was a way.

Dave Longley: Sometimes it publishes a preview feature in the conversation
there in the top left link. it's supposed to be auto updated by preview bot.
00:15:00

Dave Longley: So in the first opening comment there's two links below that
line preview. Yeah, I don't know how frequently that bot runs.

Kayode Ezike: Yeah, I would say often times it is broken from my experience…

Kayode Ezike: but

Ted Thibodeau Jr: It's supposed to run and never commit.

Patrick St-Louis: This looks correct, I believe. Fallback data. Is that on
credentials verify?

Patrick St-Louis: No, there's some things in between. All right.

Dave Longley: No, there's something else up there.

Dave Longley: Yeah, that looks right. Yep.

Patrick St-Louis: So, we're adding callback data on the workflow. Yeah, I
think this is good. are we happy?

Patrick St-Louis: Is there any objection to merging this PR?

Kayode Ezike: Yeah, I think there's a definition that we're no longer using
in the OAS. I've seen this before, too. I should put it, but in the scheme,…

Patrick St-Louis: We doesn't seem right?

Kayode Ezike: yeah, guess we can check in the branch.

Patrick St-Louis: And I'm sure we are still using verifiable presentation.
yeah,…

Dave Longley: It does seem like something went sideways.

Patrick St-Louis: I would also say that maybe my little maneuver was not so
good. yeah.

Dave Longley: If we look at the diff though for just this let's double
check that. It was only adding things, wasn't it?

Patrick St-Louis: It's adding

Dave Longley: Maybe there's an indentation problem. Yeah, this doesn't
remove anything.

Dave Longley: So I don't know why that Go ahead.

Kayode Ezike: I wonder…

Kayode Ezike: I wonder if it's because of the PR we just emerged or I don't
recall that I don't remove anything.

Patrick St-Louis: Is this correct?

Patrick St-Louis: I feel like

Dave Longley: Is some white space somehow needed? I wouldn't think so.
there's normally whites space, but right before the route definition, and
we don't have that. It's the only thing I can see that looks out of the
ordinary right there. I Yeah,…

Dave Longley: but I would think that wouldn't matter. But we could white
space in there and see if it fixes it. I don't know why. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: I find it odd that this is aligned with the post here.

Patrick St-Louis: Maybe I will check out the branch and have a look with
the open API liner.

Patrick St-Louis: I'll add a comment printing So I will command this and we
can have a look in the next meeting have it fixed. just don't want to play
around with this on the call. I'm sure it's probably like we mentioned
something indentation related. Yeah. is that okay?
00:20:00

Patrick St-Louis: Any objection?

Dave Longley: No, that sounds good.

Patrick St-Louis: Usually, yes. So, I wanted to touch in the subject. I
think I saw that into one of my email and this is something we discussed
before. So we wanted to move basically merge the verifiable presentation
request specification with the VCOM. Is that correct? Yeah.

Dave Longley: Yeah, that's correct. And I think we've done that work
already. I don't know that we have archived the VPR spec yet or pointed
from that old repository into this one. But I do think we merged either all
or…

Dave Longley: the bulk of the VPR spec into the VCOM spec.

Patrick St-Louis: I thought I saw an update related to that this week
somewhere.

Patrick St-Louis: So, just wanted to loop back and make sure that that was
still correct. Okay, that's good. this is related to the VPR inquiry by
example should be an object not an array. Yeah.

Dave Longley: I can speak to this one. So, a while back we added, logical
groups to, BPR, and it's in the BCOM spec today, but we didn't update the
examples to change the query by example property called credential query to
be a simple object. So the logical groups I believe they handle all the
cases you would have in a query. And the credential query property was
previously optionally an object …

Dave Longley: And when it was an array, it handled one of the logical
cases. And that's handled more explicitly now through groups.

Joe Andrieu: Hey.

Dave Longley: So we can simplify that to just be an object. no change to
the text …

Patrick St-Louis: Is there any change to the text to be made for this or…

Patrick St-Louis: really just the examples? Okay.

Dave Longley: because I think we need more text around defining that. So
there I didn't see any text that needed changing. we're lacking text, but
when we write that text, we can don't have to include this extra option.

Patrick St-Louis: So maybe PR should update the examples to reflect and
maybe add some texture here.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I think ideally it would convent mention

Patrick St-Louis: To explain the Okay. no, I believe I can take this.

Patrick St-Louis: So I'd be happy to have a look and it was ready for PR
and this is documentation effort request from Ez.

Dmitri Zagidulin: I did not realize that it changed to an object.

Dmitri Zagidulin: It certainly makes my code simpler.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Just make sure I think Okay.

Patrick St-Louis: So, I'm just the title

Dmitri Zagidulin: Wait, so does that mean you can no longer host multiple
queries and request multiple objects?
00:25:00

Dave Longley: you can. It's just done through the group feature instead.
So, if we bring up the spec shows this in examples, it needs to do a better
job with the text. But if you wanted to ask, you can do through a group
identifier.

Dmitri Zagidulin:

Dmitri Zagidulin: I see.

Dave Longley: So, if you use different group identifiers,…

Dmitri Zagidulin:

Dmitri Zagidulin: I see.

Dave Longley: that's a way to say I will accept that group of things. And
anything you put under the same group identifier is So you could ask for
that credential A, B, C, D, put them all into the same group identifier.
And in order to satisfy that group identifier, you'd have to provide all of
them.

Dmitri Zagidulin: Got Is there an example of curiosity?

Dave Longley: If we search in here for something like double quote and…

Patrick St-Louis: Logical operation inquiries.

Dave Longley: double quote, there is an example or if you search for group,
I think you might find it. And then there's an ore right below it.

Dmitri Zagidulin: Uh-huh. Wait,…

Dmitri Zagidulin: but those are in comments.

Dave Longley: The ore is written in a comment, but the way that you express
it in the language is at the top level of a VPR, the query object is full
of queries, and each query specifies a group.

Dave Longley: If you leave the group off, it just becomes the undefined
group. And everything in the undefined group is its own group. but you can
now put a group identifier in there to separate things.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Dmitri Zagidulin: I see.

Dmitri Zagidulin: And are we bumping the spec version issue for breaking
changes like this?

Dave Longley: This is backwards compatible.

Dave Longley: We can change whatever version we wanted,…

Dave Longley: but you can continue to use what you were doing before. or it
would still function. that's why I was saying if you don't put a group
here, it would behave like it did before. Everything gets put into the same
group. It's just an undefined group. So, Processing should still handle
that. if no one put the group in there.

Dmitri Zagidulin: I see.

Patrick St-Louis: That means that an array is still valid in that case.

Dmitri Zagidulin: I see.

Dave Longley: So, yeah, that we should figure out what we want to do about
that. whether having do we want to continue to make an array val valid here
or…

Dave Longley: I mean it doesn't really do anything. It's just more stuff
you have to check for. yep.

Dmitri Zagidulin: I agree.

Dmitri Zagidulin: I agree. Since we don't need two arrays, since the query
is an array, the credential query doesn't need to be. Okay. Thank you.

Patrick St-Louis: Where was Okay.

Patrick St-Louis: Interesting. I'm just thinking a little bit trying to
iterate over different scenarios. I got the PRS sign. I'll see so there is
already some text I'll see what could be added. to maybe add a bit of
detail.

Patrick St-Louis: If some detail is missing. Thank you.

Dave Longley: Yeah. Something I'm noticing that's probably not the best.

Dave Longley: We probably don't have the best and example there where
you're providing two different query languages and saying please satisfy
both. while that's a thing you could do, that's probably not The most
common and is probably that you would have several query by examples in the
same group. not please satisfy my query by example and…

Dave Longley: my dackle. The ore makes more sense right now. If you scroll
down that makes a lot more sense.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Dave Longley: Choose the query language that works for you is what that
looks like. So I can speak to that both DAL and…

Dmitri Zagidulin: Do we have an example of a response to that?

Dmitri Zagidulin: I'm trying to picture how is the group tags corresponding
in the response.

Dave Longley: query by example do not work like presentation exchange where
there's an expectation that you're responding back with the group that your
response is for. Instead, there's an expectation that the verifier can
appropriately figure out what you meant. So, this is sort of speaking to
the submission part of presentation exchange and that was completely
removed from oid forVP. There is no such thing.

Dave Longley: and VPR doesn't there is also no counterpart to that and
there hasn't been a strong case made that that's actually needed to
accomplish it and that adjacent schema can be written to handle whatever
response is provided Yeah,…
00:30:00

Dmitri Zagidulin: So practically speaking, that means a likely response is
a verifiable presentation with just an array of credentials that satisfy
the results.

Dave Longley: that's right. Yep.

Dmitri Zagidulin: All right. I can work with that.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, I think that's pretty interesting.

Dave Longley: And just another note, I think we decided to not add anything
on presentation exchange into the spec since it's being deprecated by oid
forvp. There's not a lot of people expecting people to continue using
presentation exchange into the future. It would only be used in legacy use
cases. So the two query lang languages that it would put in here would be
query by example and dackle. And I think there's an issue somewhere for…

Dave Longley: if there isn't an issue we should get to it at some point
showing how you can convert between the two as well.

Patrick St-Louis: the Dwall and…

Patrick St-Louis: query by example. Is that it?

Dave Longley: Yeah, that's right.

Patrick St-Louis: There seems to be a duplicate here. I'll can probably get
rid of one of these. meter. Are you saying we need to go to 1.0?

Dmitri Zagidulin: This seems like a good excuse to bump the spec version
number, right? Because removing the presentation exchange examples would be
sort of a backwards incompatible.

Patrick St-Louis: Whoa. Yeah.

Dmitri Zagidulin: No, I'm saying we need to go to dun 0.10 not to be
confused with 0.1.

Dave Longley: Yeah. Also,…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Let's

Dave Longley: we never had presentation ex exchange examples in the spec,
so there's nothing to remove.

Dmitri Zagidulin: …

Dmitri Zagidulin: okay. I take that back.

Dave Longley: Yeah. Yeah.

Dmitri Zagidulin: But however, keep the 0.10 in mind that is going to be
inevitable.

Dave Longley: I'm not sure if that's a thing that actually generally
happens with V with W3C specs that you bump those versions while they're
still in development form.

Dmitri Zagidulin: What do you mean? right? But…

Dave Longley: Once this gets into the working group, for example, it's
going to say 1.0 up at the top and it's going to say that the whole time
the working group works on it until it reaches recommendation status. And
so,…

Dmitri Zagidulin: but in incubation though,…

Dave Longley: and I don't think we should I think it's only there to
indicate it's not in the working group.

Dmitri Zagidulin: why else do we have the minor version?

Dave Longley: I don't think it serves any other purpose. I don't really
care…

Dmitri Zagidulin: Okay. I see.

Dave Longley: what it says, but I don't think it actually serves a semantic
versioning purpose.

Dmitri Zagidulin: But in that case, it should because I mean it is a real
pain point of developers developing against a changing and it's not just
that it's changing, we're all used to that when not using a TR. It's
changing without you knowing.

Dave Longley: Yeah, if we're making a change that's going to break
something for somebody,…

Dave Longley: I would say we should instead have a section that says you
can if this shows up, handle it this way. I'm not aware that we're doing
that,…

Dmitri Zagidulin: I see.

Dave Longley: but we should just try to not make breaking changes, but
keeping in mind that sometimes that's unavoidable when you're still in
incubation.

Dmitri Zagidulin:

Dmitri Zagidulin: I see. an example of a breaking change would have been
the interact value …

Patrick St-Louis: Yep. Okay.

Dmitri Zagidulin: which I did code against and I'm now switching it to
whatever it is redirect URL. All good though. Can

Patrick St-Louis: So no version update for this.

Patrick St-Louis: I

Dmitri Zagidulin: If I understand Dave correctly,…

Dmitri Zagidulin: no version bump on

Dave Longley: Yeah, I don't see a reason to do it.

Patrick St-Louis: any objection? if not, I'll leave it as this and I'll
have a quick look at changing these examples. I'm going to read through
that logical section again and see if there's any small couple of words
that can be added. Okay.
00:35:00

Dave Longley: Yeah, I would say if we end up making a change that has some
kind of significant problem with the ecosystem, we should revise the spec
back and say you got to handle this case. rather than making it really hard
for people to bounce between drafts and so

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, obviously there's some of this deployed in some
systems out there. So while it's true that it's in development, I think
reality says that there's people running this software and if they were,
conformant with the spec at some point and then they become nonconformant
without a version change.

Patrick St-Louis: It could raise some questions.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I would say there's even a subtle difference there
between non-conformant, and does this break my existing software. It's one
thing if a new party starts showing up at a system you've deployed to
communicate with you and you haven't implemented the new bits of the spec,
I wouldn't say that's the same thing, but you wouldn't necessarily want
there to be some big breaking change. as a general rule I think we've
avoided those or…

Dave Longley: tried to avoid those so that things would continue working.
we might have shifted from this was going to be the name of the thing we
standardized to that but that doesn't mean you can't use that other
property. it's just not going to be the standard one.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I think that's valid.

Patrick St-Louis: The biggest change I've seen in this spec was really the
workflows when they got a bit more so this one says needs discussion. so if
we feel like having a discussion we can read this. let's have a look.

Patrick St-Louis: just So, this is about adding a sort of sequence work
using the API. is it? Yeah. So this is showing a sort of sequence diagram
for I want to say basic workflows like simple issuance presentation
verification for this issue if we need to show the process with different
components.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I think a diagram like this to really show which
component talks to which component is good to make sure that everyone
understand. do you want to talk a little bit part about what you started
and more specifically what questions you would have that we could address
here? Yeah.

Parth Bhatt: Yeah, I think I already got some information or…

Parth Bhatt: instructions from Dave and Manu on this. I just haven't got
time to view it back on this one.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. …

Patrick St-Louis: so from what I understand there'd be two diagram, one
that looks like this and then one for a presentation.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. I mean, I like this.

Parth Bhatt: Yeah I sorry.

Patrick St-Louis: Don't know if No,…

Parth Bhatt: Go ahead.

Patrick St-Louis: I was just going to mention it's not in the thing, but I
don't know if we want to show something for revocation. maybe we can add
that at a later time. status because we do define a status service and it'd
be interesting to see

Patrick St-Louis: at which point does the issuer contact the status
service? Yeah. Okay.

Parth Bhatt: Mhm. Yeah.
00:40:00

Parth Bhatt: So the current diagram is not up to the mark. we probably need
some what more high level swim diagram and how it will interact with
different components. So this was just an initial rough draft or a thought
of based on the initial issue description. this is what I came up with and
I got some feedback. So, I need to update this as well,…

Parth Bhatt: but it's not accurate. Just to clarify.

Patrick St-Louis: …

Patrick St-Louis: I say will diagram based on feedback?

Parth Bhatt: Yep, sounds good. Thanks,

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I think about it, it'd be interesting to highlight,
where does the state changes because these workflow they have different
states.

Patrick St-Louis: so I wonder if there would be a way through this diagram
to show at which step should one component change the state of the
exchange. So in this case the issuer at which one of these steps should the
state of the exchange or the workflow exchange gets affected as Heat.

Dave Longley: I think that would be super useful. I wonder if we're trying
to do too much in one diagram, but it would be very cool if you could see
the state of the workflow changing and it goes from pending to active and
complete and what data it's holding on to as you go through the steps. I
don't know if that's too much to try and…

Dave Longley: cram into a single diagram, but I do expect that would be
helpful for developers to see and

Patrick St-Louis: Because if I like this reminds me the Aries protocol.

Patrick St-Louis: So they have these states and the issuer both
participants they each have their own states that they see from their point
of view. and I believe they do have some kind of diagram like this that not
only shows the order of operation but also has what happens if someone
stopped the exchange right so there's kind of crossroads and…

Patrick St-Louis: this does I think highlight the state change at one point

Dave Longley: I will offer my gut reaction looking at that diagram is that
that looks hard to consume.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes. Yeah.

Dave Longley: So, we do need to be careful that we don't try to do too much
at once.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Yeah. one thing here also is that exchange it can
start in many ways, this exchange, it could start with the wallet making a
proposal of a credential they want to get issued or the issuer making an
offer or the wallet making a request. I will agree that this is a little
bit complex.

Patrick St-Louis: yeah. it just made me think about this little bit.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I would say if we want to get more information into the
diagram, it might be worth having multiple diagrams. so we talked about
this diagram, I don't know, a couple of calls ago or so. We know that some
of the components that are in there need to come out and it needs to be
reorganized. It might become simple enough to put sort of state information
there, but we might also just want to break it down into different steps
with the state information. And so as a developer reading the spec, you
could go through each one of the kind of pieces that you would be
implementing or…

Patrick St-Louis: Actually not sure…

Dave Longley: interacting with and see them individually. and then a higher
le if we're going to go higher level than that and try to put it all in
there, I think we have to abstract away some of those details so it's not
all in your face at once.
00:45:00

Patrick St-Louis: what a swim lane diagram is. Okay. Yeah,…

Joe Andrieu: It's just a sequence diagram.

Patrick St-Louis: I think this is closer to what the swim lane diagram is.
It seemed like it does have some branching options. So, let's review when
part gives us a updated version. Anything any other comment on that issue?

Kayode Ezike: Sorry, I was just kind of saying something. I guess I can say
this. So, I think I'm not sure. I can't recall memory support this, but
something like a labeled dot or something at the vertical lines wherever
the arrows are hitting a vertical line like that could be placed there or
something be labeled in a legend or something but I don't recall if mermaid
has that but it could be for examp on that vertical

Kayode Ezike: line in between this first and second but that's just my
audio is not great one second one second sorry is this better okay sorry
okay…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I'm getting pieces of…

Patrick St-Louis: what you're saying, but some of it is difficult to
follow. much better. I heard labels and lines. Yeah,…

Kayode Ezike: what I was saying is I don't recall if memory supports this
but something like a labeled or rather just a colored dot u for example on
vertical lines wherever the arrow hits the vertical line to indicate okay
this is where if it becomes green now it's active if it was yellow was
pending if it was I don't know just a thought but I don't recall if that's
something that memory was important but it could be a way to get
information in there that doesn't actually put too much text on the

Patrick St-Louis: that's a good thing to investigate.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah I think starting let's get the different
interactions right and then we can think what could be layered as a useful
information on top without making it too overcrowded. I'm also curious
about these ones here like these display and…

Patrick St-Louis: show consent prompt. this is interesting. Okay, I think
we have time for one or two more. Yeah.

Joe Andrieu: I had a maybe clarifying …

Joe Andrieu: what was it we were trying to get done in Mermaid? What was
the suggestion? Was it just to color some things or

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I think let me try to explain if I understood. So
you mentioned that these lines could be colorcoded to reflect the state.

Kayode Ezike: No, no.

Kayode Ezike: So, it was actually a little bit more. No. So, basically on
the actual vertical line. So for example there's a way to put a note on a
vertical line it's So for example wherever the arrow hits a vertical line
that could be a way for example to say this is indicating a change in
something. So I was thinking just something like a note…

Patrick St-Louis: Mhm. Yeah.

Kayode Ezike: but instead of a rectangular box like a colored circle or do
that or something that indicates okay this is the point where the state
changed. to be honest, there's not too many places…

Kayode Ezike: where the state of the exchange changes so, it won't be that
many of these dots anyways if that was to be the case, but it was just a
thought.

Joe Andrieu: Okay, cool.

Joe Andrieu: I had used some features over in the use cases diagram but it
is not available in sequence diagrams. So I was just teasing that out.
there are some things you can do,…

Joe Andrieu: but it's not clear if it's going to really let us do what was
proposed, but you might try it.

Patrick St-Louis: What?

Patrick St-Louis: My try. What? I didn't.

Joe Andrieu: The mermaid does have some hooks to put in some stylized
elements.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Joe Andrieu: I think in this diagram mostly what they do is let you define
the boxes at the top they have roles that it seems to like participant
boundary control and…

Joe Andrieu: entity types. I'm not sure if they'll let you tweak a message
line itself.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.
00:50:00

Patrick St-Louis: Will be some things to explore.

Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I suggest don't spend too much time on it,…

Joe Andrieu: but you might find something without too much effort.

Patrick St-Louis: Perfect. Okay.

Patrick St-Louis: I'd like to do one more. we'll end the call in five
minutes. let's just have a look at this one. I'm quite curious about this
one. it makes sense that RP component show me this city.

Dave Longley: This one might actually be related to the PR that either just
got merged or…

Dave Longley: was about to be merged today. Yeah, we might have actually
completed this.

Patrick St-Louis: So you might have what?

Dave Longley: We might have completed this one. And I think that was adding
a note that said that the architecture diagram is just one possible way to
do the architecture that's used to explain how the spec works and it's not
meant to be prescriptive. we can have a workflow service that has both
verification and…

Joe Andrieu: Thank you.

Dave Longley: issuance capability and so on.

Patrick St-Louis: But you're saying this PR here address.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I believe that that's right. And if we look at the
bottom of this one, it might say that it addresses the issue or

Patrick St-Louis: Close the previous one. Okay. Perfect.

Patrick St-Louis: any objection to closing this issue? It's closed. Okay,
just trying to see there's some discussion about the colors and
accessibility. Yeah, good point about the colors and accessibility.

Patrick St-Louis: okay I think so we triaged one more issue closed an issue
this pulled request fumbled so we'll have to have a look exactly what
happened perfect I think that's going to wrap it up for the call today next
week I believe the call is cancelled because of TAC. so the next meeting
will be the week after this on the 18th. So then should have maybe one or
two more PR open and some more things to discuss.

Patrick St-Louis: This being said, thank you for attending and I will
adjoin the meeting. Have a good rest of your day.
Meeting ended after 00:54:17 👋

*This editable transcript was computer generated and might contain errors.
People can also change the text after it was created.*