Re: Removing owner from key info in DID Documents

Standards don't care about philosophy, AFAIK. School of hard knocks n all.
IMHO therefore, better to ensure modalities are flexible / inclusive.

On Tue., 17 Oct. 2017, 7:50 am Melvin Carvalho, <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/
>>
>