W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2018

Re: Seeking to update Decentralized Identity related slides

From: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 07:46:26 +0100
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <9a86b833-5fdf-fdaf-34a4-0b0e19fc3ff8@danubetech.com>
On the technology/architecture side, when I do talks I usually start
with DIDs, and then mention VCs after that.

I find DIDs and why they are needed as a basis for everything else
rather easy to explain. But I also feel that explaining SSI = DIDs + VCs
is a very simplified summary of what we're doing, and much more work
will be needed on data models, protocols, etc. We're only at the
beginning of building that architecture consisting not only of DIDs +
VCs, but also DID Auth, agents, hubs, personal clouds, petnames,
capabilities, key management, ZKPs, and more.

"DIDs Unique Selling Proposition" looks like an interesting CCG agenda item.

Thanks for sharing your slides, that's great and I also plan to re-use
some of them in upcoming events!

Did they record your talk in Zurich?


On 11/6/18 12:54 AM, Christopher Allen wrote:
> Thank you everyone for sharing your slides! Very helpful, though there
> were many good ideas elsewhere I was unable to puzzle how to fit in.
> Next time.
> I did succeed in updating a lot of the terminology for my talk tonight
> in Zurich to the latest language & integrated at least a few of the
> better approaches from others that I felt were more effective than my
> own. Also, many thanks to Joe & Markus who reviewed over the weekend
> an early draft.
> New to this talk is I explicitly separate the Ideology from the
> Architecture, and each could potentially stand alone. I agree with Joe
> that using the term “movement” rather than ideology is likely better,
> but I didn’t change it as the title of talk was already advertised
> (and I think I’d need new images).
> I received a lot of positive feedback here in Switzerland on the
> ideology part of the talk, but it still needs work. In particular I
> felt Kaliya’s social context recursive triad definition of identity
> leads better into DIDs than Joe’s functional identity definition. I
> like aspects of both but wasn’t able to integrate them.
> The Architecture section is weaker. I tried to explain why we focused
> on DIDs first, but it wasn’t as easy a coherent story to tell. Best
> I’ve done to date, but feel I lost even some of my tech audience there. 
> The story connection from DID Docs to VCs was particularly weak. Some
> tell the story VC first/DIDs second, and I can see why, but right now
> the DID story is more important. We know decentralized is important
> but we are not yet effective is saying why yet.
> A lot of stuff is missing in section on future work: not sure how to
> present things like pair-wise DIDs & selective disclosure when only
> one party plans to implement it. I work hard in my talks to be as
> impartial/agnostic to blockchains and avoid single vendor specific
> solutions as I can.
> My final slides from last night are at:
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15M0tdSS1dRMVdJdVgBlFap8JwiuFdvocZ0AAu7c1eBk
> I welcome comments, improvements, re-usage, etc.
> — Christopher Allen
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2018 06:46:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:50 UTC