Re: Call for Focal DID Use Cases

I understand this is not the best forum for discussing a specific use case, but let me answer this and let’s move this coversation to the use case document, or elsewhere.

I fully agree with John here as well. In our use case, it’s imperative that the company and its identity is rooted to a public governmental office. This is exactly what we did in our project as well.

John, have you already created a use case description for Orgbook? Ours would in there as another example as well.

Thanks,

-Antti

________________________________
From: Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 3:25:04 PM
To: Jordan, John CITZ:EX
Cc: W3C Credentials CG (Public List); Manu Sporny; Kettunen Antti J
Subject: Re: Call for Focal DID Use Cases

John has made some very good points and explained them nicely. I think he has it right.

On Jun 1, 2018 13:41, "Jordan, John CITZ:EX" <John.Jordan@gov.bc.ca<mailto: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<mailto: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