Re: Removing owner from key info in DID Documents

On 16 October 2017 at 21:52, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 10/16/2017 10:58 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > Why would that want to be removed?
>
> There were a few folks from the Bitcoin BTCR DID camp that asserted that
> you can assume who the key owner is if the key is listed in the DID
> Document, which I believe is true (without putting much thought into it).
>
> The downside, of course, is that not listing the key owner is
> incompatible with all the Linked Data Signature libraries. There are
> systems, such as HTTP URL-based ones, where you MUST provide the owner
> (to create the bi-directional link between the site that the key is
> published on and the site that hosts the triples for the owner of the
> key). A compromise would be to inject the owner before sending the key
> into the LDS libs, or to just be okay with a common format across all
> DID Documents.
>
> I suggested that the BTCR folks don't break from this pattern as it'll
> make BTCR-specific implementations more difficult with the only upside
> being the saving of a few tens of bytes of data.
>

If I've understood correctly.  There's possibly another advantage of making
it explicit, in that you can index the web of reputation more easily
without having to hard code assumptions into the indexer.

This may lead to a nice searchable trust graph and search engine eco system
that grows over time.


>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>