Re: Call for Focal DID Use Cases

Thanks for this contribution, Jordan.

I agree with you that GOV-issued VCs are the right way to prove the
existence of a legal entity.

I have a couple of follow-up questions/comments.

1) Since the issuer of a VC is also identified via a DID, how is this GOV
DID that signs the Org VCs made know to others?

2) Not all organizations are legal entities.  Some are more informal, like
a book club?  Who signs these VCs?

I have some thoughts on these questions but am curious about what others
think.

   -chrisb


On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Jordan, John CITZ:EX <John.Jordan@gov.bc.ca
> wrote:

> So ...
>
> I think I have a different point of view on corporate identifiers ... I
> don’t think we need a single identifier like we have been trying to
> unsuccessfully have in some places for years. I feel like those numbers are
> a bad side effect of centralized database primary keys.
>
> For sure a legal entity that isn't human (corporations, partnerships,
> societies, etc) will have DIDs, however I don't think they need one DID to
> be known by. These types of entities have to be created by some
> legislatively authorized authority. They only exist as a construct of a
> law. Therefore, there must be a Verifiable Credential issued to that
> entity. It is this verifiable credential that is the proof of existence for
> that legal entity. It may contain some sort of locally unique identifier
> but that is beside the point I believe. The entity will have presented the
> authority with a DID to which the verifiable credential would be issued
> from the point of view of the authority. However, if the legal entity later
> establishes a digital relationship with a supply chain partner or what not
> .. they could use a different DID for that relationship and use the
> verifiable credential they hold to prove they are a registered legal entity
> (and whatever other proofs they are required to provide) to their new
> partner.
>
> I think the reason I am quite resistant to a single identifier (if that is
> what is being contemplated) for an organization is that in the real world
> stuff happens. Organizations, change, merge, are sold and so forth. Very
> rarely do they go about the task of informing all the connections they have
> after this real world event has happened  and when it impacts things like
> legal name, the identifier they are known by and whatnot. And so, over time
> the real world events wander off from these single identifiers no matter
> who controls those identifiers. What is more dynamic and more closely
> related to the real world happenings are the verifiable credentials. When a
> corporation is bought by another there must be an interaction with the
> Corporate Registrar to deal with credentials. This purchasing corporation
> may, likely will, create new relationships (DIDs) and perhaps have ways to
> have the verifiable credentials of the purchased company transferred to
> them with the proper new legal name etc.
>
> Anyway, I think it better to separate the DID (addressing space) from the
> verifiable credential (business space).
>
> My thoughts.
> J
>
>
>
> On 2018-06-01, 6:12 AM, "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>
>     On 05/31/2018 07:15 AM, Kettunen Antti J wrote:
>     > Manu, this sounds a really interesting use case. The Corporate
>     > identifiers is a huge topic, since it touches on a vast number of
>     > additional use cases, like representation rights, founding
>     > documents, share ownership, etc.
>
>     Yes, cryptographic corporate identifiers seem to be a very common use
> of
>     Decentralized Identifiers. The process seems to be:
>
>     1. Organization gets a DID.
>     2. Government issues a Verifiable Credential for the DID.
>     3. DID + VC is used to perform some task.
>
>     > Do you think these use cases should be separate, or should we
>     > collaborate on this?
>
>     I think they are separate use cases that depend on the same three steps
>     above and I think you should submit your use case as well. We can
> always
>     combine use cases later, but I think the most interesting thing about
>     your use case is that the DID is used in a different set of industries
>     and for a different set of purposes than the one I mentioned.
>
>     Part of the purpose of these use cases is to demonstrate to the W3C
>     Membership (400+ organizations) that this technology has broad
>     applications and in order to do that, we need to show its use in a very
>     diverse set of market verticals and business processes as possible.
>
>     -- manu
>
>     --
>     Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>     Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>     blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
>     https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>
>
>
>