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

Re: DIDs and University Use Cases (was Re: Seeking to update Decentralized Identity related slides)

From: Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <snorre@diwala.io>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 22:50:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE8zwO2SxAWPmPyig3WncdQqgfRd93ZyK9SOvgpQypzT9xU6Nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: joe@legreq.com
Cc: kim@learningmachine.com, David.Challener@jhuapl.edu, kevin@kiva.org, Moses Ma <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>, swcurran@cloudcompass.ca, markus@danubetech.com, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Is some if these organizations Groningen Declaration Network?
I heard Learning Machine had spoken to them, how did that go?

But to continue the discussion about DIDs and universities.

DiDs don’t seem to be required. (U of I isn’t using them).




Why does the admin have to take 6 months every time they get the piece of
paper with the shiny stickers? I assume that fraud is a real problem in
this country, and phones don’t work for some reason (call the university
and ask if the GPA/ major, and a few other things on the doc are correct),
but this still seems really excessive.


That comes down to admin and procedures. Sure you can send in McKinsey and
do a LEAN run-through to speed up the process, or you can do a leapfrog to
pure digital solution.

The power comes mostly from VCs, but it is very difficult to have
VCs(Verifiable claims) without a decentralized representation of yourself,
DIDs.

You can create verifiable claims on any data, but if that data is not
verifiable on open decentralized technology, there is no value in that
claim.

I understand your concern in why not solve the immediate problem, and I
believe in solving the smaller problems with great technological advanced.
But I would say that solving the school accredation paper, is in itself a
small thing, but involves many parties



I do know of cases where people got a job saying they had a degree they did
not have – but I just assumed that HR didn’t do due diligence."

I to do that, that is why we are trying to build a decentralized
verification site, backed by multiple important parties, so easier verify
what people are claiming. Hence verifiable claim.


I would just like to hear how do to go about on a scalable interoperable
solution, with the two solutions that has been mentioned.

That meaning that verifications should be able to happen outside of any
type of centralized system, across borders and across sectors.

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:18 PM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote:

> As I understand it, there are also international treaties regarding the
> recognition of foreign credentials that can add significantly to the delays
> in using such a transcript. The real delay is often not getting the record
> from the school, but rather the validation of it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validation_of_foreign_studies_and_degrees
>
> This is a great case where the virtual non-jurisdictionality of DIDs and
> VCs can establish a reliable verification of authenticity without recourse
> to signed paperwork from living human beings attesting to the validity of a
> given degree/diploma/transcript.
>
> -j
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote:
>
> Good idea Snorre; this is how we usually do it. (just subject rename)
>
> David: you've considered the issuer side; now think about the recipient
> side.
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 10:36 AM Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <
> snorre@diwala.io> wrote:
>
> Can someone explain to me what the procedure of taking this to another
> thread is?
> I would like to answer David, but to not clutter up the current reason.
> It might be a good discussion to exactly why DIDs are needed in this use
> case.
> It was once again just an answer directly to me so I would like to create
> a new thread or discussion arena on it.
> Transparency for the win 🎉
>
> "No – just trying to understand.
>
> I would think there are a lot of ways to fix this including:
>
> 1)     A webpage with a digital pub key for the university that can be
> used to look up a transcript (password given to user)
>
> 2)     Digital signature over the transcript
>
> A quick note – it appears the university of Illinois is doing 2), sent at
> the request of the student to the place they have asked.
>
>
>
> DiDs don’t seem to be required. (U of I isn’t using them).
>
>
>
> Why does the admin have to take 6 months every time they get the piece of
> paper with the shiny stickers? I assume that fraud is a real problem in
> this country, and phones don’t work for some reason (call the university
> and ask if the GPA/ major, and a few other things on the doc are correct),
> but this still seems really excessive.
>
>
>
> I do know of cases where people got a job saying they had a degree they
> did not have – but I just assumed that HR didn’t do due diligence."
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:00 PM Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <
> snorre@diwala.io> wrote:
>
> Are you deliberately just responding to me David? Let me know and I will
> stop reply to all. But i think this is important information for everybody,
> based on the discussion.
>
> "So if they have computers, why does it take 6 months to respond to a
> request for a transcript?
>
> Do they have computers, but no printers?"
>
>
> So the procedure in that country is that it is not allowed to just print a
> transcript. That is because they want high trust. There have been many
> fraud attempts, and this is the schools reputation.
>
> What takes time is the administrative to acctually go through the process
> of getting that special piece of paper with the watermarks, and shiny
> stickers, because that created trust.
>
> So, since all have mobiles, and there are computers, how can you verify
> something that creates trust, without having to go via the physical world?
>
> I think this sounds like a case for DID and VC`s?
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:44 PM Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <
> snorre@diwala.io> wrote:
>
> I would like to include in the collaborative discussion this answer:
>
> "So if it takes 6 months to get a transcript, I think there is a
> different and very big problem to work on.  And DiDs probably won’t help in
> this case (How long do you think it would take to get computers set up in
> this school?)"
>
> My response to this is that, yes there are different root problems that
> need to be worked on, but assuming they dont have computers, is ignorant.
> They are mobile first country, they use less cash than whats going on in
> the USA.
> They are ready for a leapfrog of trusted tech to be able to build up their
> infrastructure in a more digital way.
> We are currently working in that country and see a massive readiness to
> adopt this technology.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:07 PM Kevin O'Brien <kevin@kiva.org> wrote:
>
> Having previously worked for a large university system, specifically on
> their transcript system, I can say that at least California state schools
> have no real interest in running their own transcript services. We also
> certainly didn't make money off of the transcripts.
>
> So, I think the transcript example is appropriate, although how much of a
> problem it is a fair question worth asking. As well, convincing said
> schools to do things in a new way would be a difficult challenge to
> overcome and the value proposition at the current point in time would be
> unlikely to be valuable enough to try such an endeavor. But through the
> work of folks like people such as yourselves I imagine it will get there
> some day :)
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Kim Hamilton Duffy <
> kim@learningmachine.com> wrote:
>
> David Challener: those are common misconceptions. Re administrative
> paperwork fees — that is negligible and just meant to cover the costs.
>
> As to angry alumni, I’ll skip to the punchline. Learning Machine has
> university customers who think of these as features that delight their
> alumni.
>
> P.s. it’s the education clearing houses that won’t like it
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:57 AM Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <
> snorre@diwala.io> wrote:
>
> If you look at the world in whole, there is a problem.
> In Kamapala, Uganda some schools take 6 months to get transcripts to the
> user.
> What about Syria, what if the school is acctually bombed and you can't get
> a new transcript. Then a digital version of it with signatures from an
> earlier existed school is very powerfull, with the possibility to add news
> about what happened to the school.
> Is all these crazy techniques of watermark and other fancy paper uniquness
> the way we want to continue?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:25 PM Challener, David C. <
> David.Challener@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
> I don’t like this use case because I don’t think it is really viable.
>
> The university will not want to be disintermediated from its alumni.
>
> The university will not want to make its alumni angry.
>
> The university will not want to give up the money they make when they give
> out transcripts.
>
>
>
> I just checked the U. of Ill. Technique and it is really easy to get a
> transcript, so it isn’t clear there is a problem that needs to be solved
> here anyway.
>
>
>
> *From:* Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2018 1:36 AM
> *To:* Moses Ma <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>
> *Cc:* Stephen Curran <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>; Markus Sabadello <
> markus@danubetech.com>; Public-Credentials <public-credentials@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Seeking to update Decentralized Identity related slides
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
> Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
> +47 411 611  <+47%20404%2061%20926>94
> www.diwala.io
>
> --
> Kim Hamilton Duffy
> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
>
> kim@learningmachine.com
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
> Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
> +47 411 611  <+47%20404%2061%20926>94
> www.diwala.io
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
> Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
> +47 411 611  <+47%20404%2061%20926>94
> www.diwala.io
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
> Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
> +47 411 611  <+47%20404%2061%20926>94
> www.diwala.io
>
> --
> Kim Hamilton Duffy
> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
>
> kim@learningmachine.com
>
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu, PMP
>                    joe@legreq.com
> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS
>    +1(805)705-8651
> Do what matters.
>                  http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>
>
>
>

-- 


*Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
+47 411 611  <+47%20404%2061%20926>94
www.diwala.io
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2018 21:50:40 UTC

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