RE: Defining Axes or Dimensions of Trust for a Digital Identity?

Oliver, thank you for the suggestion but the scopes of the two efforts are very different.

I’ve been on a different path for quite some time relative to the general direction some of the CCG groups headed in.  We decided to remain separate (forked) several months ago (unfortunately).  Anyone is free to adapt or use any part(s) of the Universal Digital Identifier framework and Trusted Digital Web project for their own purposes. IMHO, the scope of the Universal DID efforts are at least an order of magnitude larger than the scope of the current did-spec and did-resolution efforts.

Best regards,
Michael Herman
Self-Sovereign Blockchain Architect
Hyperonomy Digital Identity Lab
Parallelspace Corporation

[Trusted Digital Web Certificate 0.1]



From: Oliver Terbu <oliver.terbu@consensys.net>
Sent: September 20, 2019 5:44 AM
To: Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Cc: rhiaro <amy@rhiaro.co.uk>; public-credentials@w3.org
Subject: Re: Defining Axes or Dimensions of Trust for a Digital Identity?

Michael,

because W3C CCG already decided to move forward with the rubrics approach, it would be great if you could try to translate your findings into rubrics, then we might be able to include your thoughts in the document. Joe Andrieu is leading the effort and organizes weekly calls.

Oliver

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:01 AM Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>> wrote:
This is kind of what I’m thinking of …simpler than I first imagined it…

[cid:image002.jpg@01D56F8B.F976AFE0]

From: Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>>
Sent: September 18, 2019 2:55 PM
To: rhiaro <amy@rhiaro.co.uk<mailto:amy@rhiaro.co.uk>>; public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Defining Axes or Dimensions of Trust for a Digital Identity?


RE: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot9-prague/blob/master/draft-documents/decentralized-did-rubric.md




This is an interesting document.  As I've been learning, when you talk about or research "trust", understanding/claridifing the scope/semantics/goals of what you're interested in is important (and not always obvious until you “get into it”).



If I understand the purpose of this Rubic document, it is a "rubric" for a) “decentralization” as well as b) “decentralization in/within DID Methods” and perhaps, c)  the “governance of decentralized processes”.



It's not, for example, a general purpose rubric for DIDs (digital identifiers) …which is what I’m working on …but one can contribute to the other.



Other comments:

  1.  "DID network" is not defined in the document. For example, is “DID network” synonymous with an implementation of a DID management system that supports a particular DID method? …or is “DID network” more synonymous the universe of DIDs and Digital Identities (across multiple methods) that represent, for example, everything in the lifecycle of a songwriter: his/her compositions, performances, revenue streams, etc.?
  2.  “Specification maturity” of what?  What is the subject or category of subjects being specified?  For example, is this section referring to the “specification maturity” of a specific DID method? …or DID method specification (document)?

Best regards,
Michael Herman
Self-Sovereign Blockchain Architect
Hyperonomy Digital Identity Lab
Parallelspace Corporation

[Trusted Digital Web Certificate 0.1]






-----Original Message-----
From: rhiaro <amy@rhiaro.co.uk<mailto:amy@rhiaro.co.uk>>
Sent: September 18, 2019 11:16 AM
To: public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Defining Axes or Dimensions of Trust for a Digital Identity?



Hi Michael,



The Rubric document that a few of us in the CCG have been working on might be interesting? There's a WIP draft from RWOT9 here:

https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot9-prague/blob/master/draft-documents/decentralized-did-rubric.md


but I expect this will be updated further soon, and possibly be developed further as part of the DID Working Group.



It contains various types of criteria for evaluating a DID Method depending on the evaluator's particular needs or use case. Criteria related to 'trust' are among those proposed so far.



The Rubric is for DID Methods rather than individual DIDs though, so apologies if I'm off the mark with what you're looking for.



Amy



On 18.9.19. 18:29, Michael Herman (Parallelspace) wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

>

>

> I'm trying to come up with a set of universal trust levels or trust

> categories for Digital Identifiers (DIDs) and I'm wondering if there

> is an existing document or other resource that might help me. At the

> highest level, for example,

>

>

>

>   * is a DID backed by a distributed ledger (or not)? i.e. the Indy

>     ledger …or it simply lives in a local wallet.

>

>

>

> Has anyone seen a categorization/taxonomy/set of “trust levels” for DIDs?

>

>

>

> Here's some "back of the envelope" notes I've been working on...

>

>

>

> Update: Technically, I'm really asking about Trust in a Digital

> Identity defined by it's associated DID and a Credential (set of

> Claims) associated with the DID. I'm clarifying this because when you

> start to research trust, trustworthiness, trust levels, etc., you end

> up coming across a lot of different articles, for example, about the

> trustworthiness of the content in Wikipedia, for example.

>

>

>

>   * Secure - ? - not easily disambiguated

>

>

>

>   * Reliable - ? - available? - not easily disambiguated

>

>

>

>   * Historized - lives on a transaction journal or database

>   * Auditable - lives on a transaction journal or database,

>     projections = ledgers

>   * Verifiable - lives on a transaction journal (preferably, a trusted

>     transaction journal)

>

>

>

>   * Permanent - live on a permanent transaction journal

>   * Immutable - live on a write-once, read-only, trusted transaction

>     journal, or decentralized transaction journal (e.g. blockchain)

>

>

>

>   * Cryptographically Verifiable - lives on a decentralized

>     transaction journal (e.g. blockchain)

>

>

>

> Best regards,

>

> Michael Herman

>

> Self-Sovereign Blockchain Architect

>

> Hyperonomy Digital Identity Lab

>

> Parallelspace Corporation

>

>

>

> Trusted Digital Web Certificate 0.1

>

>

>