Re: Removing owner from key info in DID Documents

Does that mean it's in hand?

On Tue., 17 Oct. 2017, 7:33 am Christopher Allan Webber, <
cwebber@dustycloud.org> wrote:

> Manu Sporny writes:
>
> > 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).
>
> Right... it's not strange to us, Melvin, because we're thinking about
> the general linked data case.  Some people haven't been thinking about
> signatures from a general linked data perspective until this group, and
> so it "appears" that having a "single" object with an embedded fragment
> identifier sub-object that it's strange that the key is pointing back at
> itself.  Eg, highly abbreviated:
>
> {"id": "did:example:foo",
>  "somethingSomethingKey": {
>    "id": "did:example:foo#key1",
>    // ... rest of key stuff here ...
>    "owner": "did:example:foo"}}
>
> If you're *just* looking at this from a single "nested json object" and
> the assumption that you'd always have a "nested" object with a fragment
> identifier, it looks like the object is pointing back at itself.
> But of course if you look at it from a triples/graph perspective,
> *especially* in the general case when that key may even be a different
> document living somewhere else and not "nested" like that, that this
> ownership would not be implied and it would be necessary to spell out.
>
> Anyway, that's why it was so confusing.  It was confusing to realize
> where the confusion was, too! :)  But the confusion is understandable
> if you aren't coming from the general linked data world...
>
>