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

Re: Seeking to update Decentralized Identity related slides

From: Chris Boscolo <chris@boscolo.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 00:04:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAByYRhbS-L0k-XscctZ6CbYGG77sQSCAyLpB_6dqdQeiwBvLRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: kim@learningmachine.com
Cc: moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com, swcurran@cloudcompass.ca, Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
I think this is a great way to frame the DID value proposition, Kim.

A couple of things that I think are important to highlight in your example.

   1. You actually lead with the VC, not the DID, which I think is key.
   Start with the VC and the efficiency it affords to the check process.
   2. The DID example, and specifically, the long-term key lifecycle is
   from the perspective of the Issuer which is typically a
   business/organization, not an individual.
   3. I like how you highlight the key lifecycle as a first-class citizen
   for DIDs.

>From there, I would then expand the description to a use-case where the
subject of the VC is a DID that also requires a key lifecycle solution.


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:37 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>

> About the DID value proposition, I think it is an easier sell in the edu
> space because people accept certain things as axiomatic and this line of
> reasoning (almost) always conveys it:
> 1. You earned the degree, credential, etc. It should be shareable and
> verifiable for your lifetime. There are some special cases (fraud,
> mistakes) that require revocation, and some training requires
> expiration/renewal, but in general people are primed to expect lifelong
> ownership.
> 2. The common verification processes have clear inefficiencies, and
> ...(varying description for lay audiences) ... cryptographic techniques help
> 3. If you buy into #2, long term key management is clearly a pressing
> problem
> 4. DIDs -> key lifecycle is a first class citizen
> Some of our working examples (drivers licenses, claims associated with a
> social security numbers) don’t prime people with this frame of mind. To
> Moses’s point, if we lead with examples like ID cards, our typical business
> audiences think everything is fine except for when (seemingly rare) bad
> incidents happen, e.g. equifax, personal identity theft. This “when bad
> things happen” angle is often perceived as creating problems that don’t
> exist, that apply to other people, or generally something that can be put
> off. I’d imagine that getting audience-specific metrics is the only
> convincing way forward.
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:01 AM Moses Ma <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi Stephen et al,
>> I’m an “innovation coach” and what I usually tell my clients or audience
>> is that the key to radical innovation is to look for something that
>> everyone sees as working just fine... but is actually broken. There is no
>> better  example of this phenomena than Internet identity, which is truly
>> broken, but everyone (but us DID revolutionaries) sees as situation normal.
>> This corresponds with my slide titled “The Internet is Broken (and it’s
>> not Kim Kardashian’s fault)”
>> The slides that follow propose that this is actually one of the the
>> greatest opportunity spaces in decades for blue ocean innovation.
>> That usually gets the attention of enterprise customers.
>> Moses
>> *Moses Ma | FutureLab Consulting Inc*
>> moses@ngenven.com |moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com
>> *v* +1.415.952.7888 <(415)%20952-7888> | *m*+1.415.568.1068
>> <(415)%20568-1068> | *skype* mosesma
>> *blog & social media: *my blog at psychologytoday.com
>> <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-tao-innovation> | linkedin
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/mosesma> | facebook
>> <http://www.facebook.com/moses.t.ma> | twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/mosesma>
>> On Nov 6, 2018 at 9:42 AM, <Stephen Curran <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>>
>> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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
>> --
> Kim Hamilton Duffy
> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
> kim@learningmachine.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2018 08:05:34 UTC

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