- From: Daniel Thompson-Yvetot <drthompsonsmagickindustries@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 17:10:07 +0200
- To: "Michael Herman (Parallelspace)" <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
- Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAF_jFpvqPjYphPR36jUrvo-aimVFawNofB0P7re0PbytrTA6ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Well, I personally think it would make the most sense to ref something from here: https://schema.org/docs/full.html See https://schema.org/Place and scroll to the bottom to see some examples, such as: 1. { 2. "@context": "http://schema.org", 3. "@type": "Place", 4. "geo": { 5. "@type": "GeoCoordinates", 6. "latitude": "40.75", 7. "longitude": "73.98" 8. }, 9. "name": "Empire State Building" 10. } This is what I meant in my last message. I think it makes more sense to leverage your mappings in devland, but do them in a standard format that uses the same markup as the JSON-LD morphology that the DID spec is already leveraging. Specifically, I would put this type of metadata in a service object. My concern is that (in my opinion) the ID is like an address of a house, not a catalog of everything in a house. 11. On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 3:45 AM Michael Herman (Parallelspace) < mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote: > RE: Extending it is devland business, not spec stuff. > > > > That’s where I’m headed/why I asked the question. Also to validate the > spec in real life. > > > > After Addresses and Countries, Cows and Calves are next. > > > > *From:* Daniel Thompson-Yvetot <drthompsonsmagickindustries@gmail.com> > *Sent:* August 10, 2019 5:26 PM > *To:* Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net> > *Cc:* Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Towards a global taxonomy for DID methods... > > > > My thoughts are that we should respect the original intention of JSON-LD > and provide baseline mapping entry points. The spec should define > requirements for identifying an entity, and I think it does a good job of > that. Extending it is devland business, not spec stuff. > > > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2019, 01:10 Michael Herman (Parallelspace), < > mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote: > > Take, for example, these 2 classes of (non-fungible) entities where each > entity in the class becomes a Subject and DID (Digital Identifier) is > created for each Subject: > > - Countries > - [Postal] Addresses > > > > What are examples of a taxonomy of DID Methods that make sense for > representing/organizing Countries and Addresses? > > > > did:country:… > > > > did:address:… > > > > What are your thoughts? > > > > MIchael > > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 11 August 2019 15:11:07 UTC