Re: DIDs and httpRange-14

I think I agree with your and Amy's comments that this isn't really a
practical problem, and I'd be happy to not spend more time and effort on
this.

Just wanted to have it all thought through once.

Markus

On 4/11/19 5:30 PM, Dave Longley wrote:
>
> On 4/11/19 7:39 AM, Markus Sabadello wrote:
>> But wouldn't the WebID approach mean that for example we would have
>> to write VCs like this?
>>
>> {
>>    "id": "http://example.edu/credentials/1872",
>>    "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.
>
> As I said in the Google Doc, I think this is a non-problem. Yes, make
> them the same URI (i.e. change nothing we've already been doing). Until
> someone presents a serious real world issue that cannot be reasonably
> solved without adopting this hash approach, we should move on. I suspect
> that the hash approach will likely increase implementation and cognitive
> burden without practical benefit.
>
> What if you want to make a statement about my identifier "foo#me" and
> not about me? Do we need a new identifier for my identifier? Where will
> it end? I think the only practical way it ends is by saying something
> more about the thing you're talking about that will create the
> appropriate distinction. For example, include information like `"type":
> "DidDocument"` or `"type": "Person"` if you feel that's necessary to
> avoid confusion when making statements. I assert that, in the ecosystem
> we are trying to build, people will be using DIDs to refer to the DID
> subject nearly 100% of the time.
>
> There's a reason this issue has taken many groups down a DoS rabbit
> hole: it is really more about philosophy than a practical concern. Any
> abstraction is necessarily not the thing to which it refers. But since
> we can only conceive of abstractions anyway, let's stop worrying about
> it so much and get things done.
>
>
>>
>> Markus
>>
>> 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 15:51:21 UTC