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

Thank for continuing the discussion Daniel.  The point of my original question was about, at a high level, what “taxonomy of DID Methods” would see most appropriate for Countries and Addresses …as Subjects …and less so about the schema used to represent a Country, Address, or Location.

RE: My concern is that (in my opinion) the ID is like an address of a house, not a catalog of everything in a house.

I agree.  For discussion purposes, let’s assume the DID for the house is did:structure:1234.

Then that house digital identifier (did:structure:1234) might also be used to tag a refrigerator, an oven, and toaster. Each appliance, in turn, is an individual Subject with its own DID …perhaps in the did:appliance DID Method space (assuming each appliance has an immutable serial number): e.g. did:appliance:123-456-7890.

Your thoughts?
Michael

From: Daniel Thompson-Yvetot <drthompsonsmagickindustries@gmail.com>
Sent: August 11, 2019 9:10 AM
To: Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Towards a global taxonomy for DID methods...

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<mailto: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<mailto:drthompsonsmagickindustries@gmail.com>>
Sent: August 10, 2019 5:26 PM
To: Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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