W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2019

Re: Towards a global taxonomy for DID methods...

From: Daniel Thompson-Yvetot <drthompsonsmagickindustries@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 17:10:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF_jFpvqPjYphPR36jUrvo-aimVFawNofB0P7re0PbytrTA6ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Herman (Parallelspace)" <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:54 UTC