- From: Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:05:38 +0900
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Greg Adamson <g.adamson@ieee.org>, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, Blockchain CG <public-blockchain@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE-+aY+OMv8LVWFVAKpYLSXt8Jp8EX7ufMLXTQA=_OMUSiPSMw@mail.gmail.com>
one important thing CG will disagree is no central registry of identifiers (even for ledger types) for the message format JSON (including JSON-LD) is adaptable. but for content of message, still not sure "how" On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 3 April 2017 at 07:00, Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net> wrote: > >> at Web Payments WG had similar issue. >> and they published Payment Method Identifiers ( >> https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-id/ ) >> > > Thanks for the pointer. > > There's two types of decentralized identifiers. One uses URIs to great a > giant network. One is human readable, and should be mainly used for > display purposes or in (small) proprietary networks. Web architecture 101 > says to use URIs, and those are the ones that should be standardized. > > Politics can also play a role here, but we should aim to minimize that in > the blockchain CG via appropriate pushback, in order to create scalable > block chain technology which is sorely needed. > > >> >> Decentralized Identifiers can be formatted as URL style or email style >> for example >> >> https://my.ledger.com/public_bitcoin_ledger/address >> > > The de facto way to denote a document on the web. Remember also that > documents contain data, just as files contain data. This data can include > human readable or memorable identifiers too. > > >> >> or >> >> address@https://myledger.com/public_bitcoin_ledger >> > > -1 Not a URI. Should not be used as part of the global graph. It is not > robust, it does not scale, and looks like a bit of a mess. This is more > appropriate for a silo or proprietary system. Or for a human readable > shortcut. > > >> >> or >> >> address@public_bitcoin_ledger >> > > as above > > >> >> regards >> mountie >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 2 April 2017 at 20:29, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 2 April 2017 at 04:19, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2 April 2017 at 04:19, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> bcc: Credentials CG >>>>>> cc: Blockchain CG >>>>>> >>>>>> Migrating this thread to the Blockchain CG mailing list as it's become >>>>>> more blockchain-y, than web payments-y or verifiable claim-y. >>>>>> >>>>>> For those that didn't see the start of this thread, it is here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017 >>>>>> Mar/0023.html >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/31/2017 11:25 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am interested to hear from those of you involved what the goals of >>>>>>> these [Blockchain Standardization] initiatives are? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the goals are different between the standards bodies, and >>>>>> personally, I find it very difficult to track everything going on at >>>>>> the >>>>>> moment as things are still very dynamic. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> So it's not just me! >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> What are you trying to standardize? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've heard at least these answers to that question: >>>>>> >>>>>> * governance for each blockchain >>>>>> * decentralized identifiers >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think we have to standardize decentralized identifiers, as >>>>> everything else is built on that. >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>> >>>> I feel like a lot of the technical standardization work is riding the >>>> blockchain hype. It's big "S" standardization just for the sake of >>>> standards bodies not wanting to miss the boat. >>>> >>>> Somebody please tell me what an ISO technical committee is going to >>>> standardize wrt DLT and Blockchain. The ISO process is way too slow to be >>>> effective in such a fast developing area. >>>> >>>> IMO technical standardization it will be ineffective until it has a >>>> focused use case (like DIDs). Part of the reason Interledger has been >>>> successful is that it's not trying to standardize something broad like DLT >>>> it's focused on value transfer. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> We've been stuck on this topic for 10 years as everyone has their pet >>>>> favorite identity system. >>>>> >>>>> What is needed is a system that will interoperate, and we should >>>>> aggressively throw out identity systems on the criteria that cant be shown >>>>> to interoperate (which is most of them!) or have significant traction. >>>>> >>>>> The main problem I see is that people are fascinated by overloading >>>>> identifiers to do two (or three) different things. This is wrong. >>>>> Identifiers should be opaque. The reason being that different people will >>>>> overload in different ways, and that leads to failure to interoperate, and >>>>> balkanization. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Actually I think the problem is interoperability in the various >>>> protocols used to resolve and discover addresses and services from an >>>> identifier/name. >>>> >>>> And crucially, the need for identifiers to be useful and accessible to >>>> humans. >>>> >>> >>> Typically a human will never see their URI. Inquisitive developer types >>> might dive into that, but not regular users. >>> >>> Tied to those URIs will be human readable labels, such as firstame >>> lastname (e.g. facebook) or email address (eg google), but neither of these >>> will be your unique URI, they will be artifacts of UI. There is a trap >>> that is easy to fall into, which is to conflate the operation of the UI (ie >>> what a user types in), with the universal identifier used to create a >>> social graph. This is a key limitation of web 2.0 systems such as OpenID. >>> >>> Each type of URI will have ability to lookup more information about a >>> user. In HTTP this is well standardized with linked data. Other systems >>> will need to popularize lookup systems, and grow a network effect around >>> that. This is normally a lengthy process (years or decades). HTTP URIs on >>> the other hand have the advantage of a large network, and well defined >>> lookup systems that are the most widely deployed on the planet. So having >>> a good strategy for this kind of identifier will be critical. That's not >>> to say that HTTP URIs are the only game in town, other types will gain >>> traction over time and they should all be able to play nicely together so >>> longs as specifications allow that to happen. >>> >>> I think for newer protocols it would be an advantage to standardize ways >>> to map them to HTTP URIs too. This is sometimes done with the "well-known" >>> pattern. One type I've been interested lately in, is ipfs which seem to >>> have a nice eco system for working with hashed content. >>> >>> Perhaps it's going to be possible to align ipfs and did identifiers for >>> the domain (decentralized) independent paradigm. IPFS want to also >>> implement Linked Data so that could help interop. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The most logical thing to do is to start by saying standardization of >>>>> identities MUST be URIs. >>>>> >>>>> Then look at ecosystems within each URI scheme: >>>>> >>>>> For example >>>>> >>>>> http URIs have a perfectly good spec that is widely deployed called >>>>> WebID. Alternatives in the http world can be proposed, but let's be ready >>>>> to standardize what makes sense. I would recommend labeling any identity >>>>> system that relies on http 303 redirects as an anti pattern, as experience >>>>> has shown they are a nightmare to deal with, and also they mix the data >>>>> layer with the transport layer. >>>>> >>>>> bitcoin seems to have significant traction as a uri scheme and fits >>>>> into the anyURI category >>>>> >>>>> I think enough work has been done on DID URIs to merit further >>>>> investigation >>>>> >>>>> Of course mailto: and tel: URI schemes exist. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is a nice start but then there needs to be a standard discovery >>>> protocol per scheme. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. Well, only if you're going to use that scheme. If you use HTTP >>> URIs the problem goes away. A better question might be why you would want >>> to use something else? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> We have a standard encoding for a Universal Resource Identifier and >>>> this has an allowance for a scheme so that we can define a different >>>> Universal Resource Discovery Protocol per scheme. >>>> >>>> We have at least one already: HTTP >>>> >>>> Assuming you have this, the final piece is a standard representation of >>>> a resource. i.e. If you give me a URI that you say identifies a person then >>>> when I use the appropriate discovery protocol for that URI scheme I should >>>> get back a resource I know how to interpret. >>>> >>>> (We're changing topic here again) >>>> >>> >>> I dont think this is too far off topic. The purpose of a URI is to >>> create connections in a network. The natural next step is, tying key value >>> pairs to those URIs allow user facing technology to hide the complexity >>> from the user and create web scale systems. The sanest way to represent >>> those key value pairs is the existing standard of Linked Data, choosing >>> your preferred serializations (from experience I highly recommend turtle >>> for advanced users). >>> >>> Another option would be to create a proprietary representation, and try >>> to popularize that through standardization. I'd recommend against going >>> down this route, as Linked Data is starting to gain decent traction. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we should start a wiki page on identity, and lay out the >>>>> guidelines to achieve standardization. This is the building block for >>>>> everything we do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> * interledger transactions >>>>>> * interledger linking >>>>>> * standardization around Bitcoin/Ethereum >>>>>> * smart contracts >>>>>> * blockchain data models >>>>>> * HTTP APIs >>>>>> >>>>>> So, there is technical standardization and political governance. Our >>>>>> organization is most interested in the technical standardization, but >>>>>> I >>>>>> struggle to see any initiative that has drawn more than a handful of >>>>>> blockchain organizations to the table. Interledger seems to be the >>>>>> most >>>>>> far along. I think we're making progress for cross-chain decentralized >>>>>> identifiers (DIDs). The Linked Data Decentralized Ledger stuff is new, >>>>>> but I'm speaking at a workshop on the topic day after tomorrow in >>>>>> Perth, >>>>>> Australia and will have a better idea on what the industry is thinking >>>>>> wrt. traction at that point (I don't expect much traction at present). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> As I said above I don't see "blockchain" or "DLT" standardization >>>> happening soon. The industry is still figuring out the details and while >>>> there is still a feeling that there may be undiscovered opportunities >>>> around the next corner the prominent players are not going to fall over >>>> themselves to collaborate on a standard. >>>> >>>> And, for many in the industry the belief that a DLT provides >>>> interoperability is still widely held. >>>> >>>> Interledger is not a blockchain standardization effort. The amazing >>>> developments around value recording ledgers (like Bitcoin, Ripple, >>>> Ethereum) have provided the diversity of use cases to inspire a standard. >>>> >>>> In reality Interledger could have been developed to just work between >>>> traditional private ledgers but the desire to make it interoperate with >>>> public DLTs has been a key influence on the work. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> So Adrian, to give you a data point... I can't see anything clearly >>>>>> yet, >>>>>> but I know that we're going to be seeing more and more proposals for >>>>>> standardization over the next year and we'll see how those resonate >>>>>> with >>>>>> the community. I'm skeptical that we can do big "S" standardization >>>>>> and >>>>>> should instead be seeking little "s" standardization. I think things >>>>>> like Interledger, Chainpoint, decentralized identifiers, data models, >>>>>> and HTTP APIs are all we could suggest standardization proposals for >>>>>> at >>>>>> this point in time... and even then, they'll be rough for another year >>>>>> or three before we start to see some momentum. Just my $0.02. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> Thanks Manu. With all this talk of standardization I worried that there >>>> was something I was missing. But it seems we're all in the same boat. >>>> Waiting to see where the tide takes this thing... >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Adam, are you in Perth for WWW2017? Pindar and I will be there >>>>>> tomorrow >>>>>> along with Tim and a few other blockchain folks. Perhaps we could sit >>>>>> down and have a chat about what we see as reasonable things to pursue >>>>>> in >>>>>> the next year or two? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- 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/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mountie Lee >> >> PayGate -- Payment & Money Remittance Service >> >> Tel : +82 2 2140 2700 <+82%202-2140-2700> >> E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net >> >> > -- Mountie Lee PayGate -- Payment & Money Remittance Service Tel : +82 2 2140 2700 E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net
Received on Monday, 3 April 2017 07:06:34 UTC