Re: Seeking to update Decentralized Identity related slides

For an audience relatively new to the space, or for a less technical audience, I start with the business/online existence problems people face to ground the discussion. I did the Hyperledger Indy chapter for an edX course and tried to start with DIDs and then to VCs and found it very difficult to get to the "why this matters" point. Once I changed to start with the business problem and how the use of DIDs and especially VCs addressed the problems (and more), the understanding and importance was grasped. At least I think it was :-).

Stephen Curran
Cloud Compass Computing, Inc (C3I)

P: Cell: 250-857-1096 (tel:Cell:%20250-857-1096)
W: http://cloudcompass.ca

On Nov 5 2018, at 10:46 pm, Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
> Markus
> 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