Re: DIDs and httpRange-14

But wouldn't the WebID approach mean that for example we would have to
write VCs like this?

  "id": "",
  "type": ["VerifiableCredential"],
  "issuer": "*did:btcr:xkrn-xzcr-qqlv-j6sl#me*",
  "issuanceDate": "2010-01-01T19:73:24Z",
  "credentialSubject": {
    "id": "*did:sov:WRfXPg8dantKVubE3HX8pw#me*",

That's not intuitive and would break existing implementations.

I think most in the group would agree that the bare DID identifies
(denotes) Alice (the DID subject).

My main question on this subject has been whether or not Alice's DID
Document should have its own URI / URL that is different from Alice's URI.


On 4/11/19 11:04 AM, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> On onsdag 10. april 2019 17.32.34 CEST Markus Sabadello wrote:
>> I wouldn't call this a high priority issue, but there have been
>> recurring questions on whether a DID is a URL or "only" a URI, what a
>> DID identifies (Alice? Or Alice's DID Document?), and what it means
>> exactly to resolve/dereference a DID (URL).
> Nice writeup! Indeed, my vote would be to take WebID's example and use hash 
> URIs for Alice. 
> Kjetil

Received on Thursday, 11 April 2019 11:39:42 UTC