In the last week or so Paul Madsen made at least a couple of posts with strong visual components: one that resumed my old 2005 post on a notation for message crypto, the other on Feynman diagrams . Nice! Paul, when I am in that mood I find especially pleasant to thumb through Tufte : I highly recommend it. Like Paul, in a former life I dealt with completely different stuff: I spent few years on computational geometry first , and on scientific visualization later. I am absolutely in love with what I do now ( proof ?), but I still have some residual forma mentis from those times. There's nothing on TV until Friday (can't wait for the next Battlestar Galactica!), and I am not focused enough to make real work; hence for this post I will indulge my inner geek a bit. On the topic of notation and diagrams, I often wonder if it would be of value to find an expressive representation of the claim propagation pattern. Would a circuit-like notation work? Or a network flow would work better? The main idea can be simple: all the claims inserted in the circuit must be there for a reason, since at a certain point the policy of an RP requested them; so for every claim produced there must be a piece of biz logic that eventually uses ("consumes") it. Hence IPs are sources and RPs are sinks; an initial coarse simplification may indirectly factor out subjects, by assuming that an RP-IP edge is in the schema if the subject chose to disclose. Let's take the example of one RP that implements a content Read More...