Re: Worldview conflicts on the purpose of DID documents

On 2017-12-13 10:38 AM, =Drummond Reed wrote:
> *THE RDF/JSON-LD WORLDVIEW*
> In this worldview, DID documents are a standard way to describe a 
> well-known subgraph of a potentially very large RDF graph of data 
> about a subject. To quotethis message from Dave Longley on a github 
> DID issues thread 
> <https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pull/36#issuecomment-351128922>: 
> "a DID document, is about establishing an independent entity and being 
> able to authenticate that certain activities/actions were performed by 
> that entity -- and to interact with that entity via services. This 
> necessarily includes specifying how that DID document can be 
> changed." Linked Data Signatures are also important in this worldview 
> since it is the standard way to sign JSON-LD documents.
> 
> *THE AGENT WORLDVIEW*
> 
> In this worldview,DID documents are about having an open, 
> interoperable way to discover and manage the cryptographic keys 
> and service endpoints necessary to bootstrap secure, verifiable 
> connections, claims, and interactions between agents acting on behalf 
> of DID subjects.
> 

Due to my lack of knowledge of many of the terms, I have difficulty 
understanding the distinction here well enough to relate it use cases. 
But it does make me wonder: Will some use cases be excluded, or better 
served, by one of these "worldviews"?

I'm hoping someone who understands what Drummond is getting at here 
better than I will take a stab at distinguishing what would be the 
differential consequences for publishing, health systems, 
self-sovereignty, and so forth, that might exist (or not) between 
these two different approaches.

Steven

Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2017 21:30:12 UTC