Re: Renaming "DID registry" to "DID ledger" (was: Re: New iteration of the DID Use Cases document)

> So I strongly believe that the sooner we fix this naming issue, the
sooner we stop sending the wrong message to potential adopters about how
DIDs actually work.

I definitely agree sooner is better...if people are down for this exercise
right now, I'm not stopping anyone

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:26 PM =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
wrote:

> Kim, while I agree that it would be good to avoid a naming exercise right
> now, in fact a term was recently suggested to me that IMHO would be
> infinitely better than "DID registry". It is simply "DID ledger".
>
> Note that the term "DID ledger" does not say "distributed ledger" or
> "blockchain" or anything that would imply that DID technology could only be
> written to one of those types of systems. In fact, "DID ledger" doesn't
> even mean that the ledger is decentralized.
>
> What "DID ledger" DOES capture however is the idea that the DID controller
> *writes* the DID to the ledger. In all cases with DIDs, that's what
> happens (whether the DID is actually initially created entirely independent
> of the ledger, as with Sovrin DIDs, or it is created via the write
> transaction to the ledger, as with BTCR DIDs).
>
> And that of course is exactly the OPPOSITE of what happens with
> "registries". The essence of the problem with the word "registry" is that
> it is always the registry that controls the rights to the identifier, not
> the registrant.
>
> So I strongly believe that the sooner we fix this naming issue, the sooner
> we stop sending the wrong message to potential adopters about how DIDs
> actually work.
>
> =D
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:58 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy <
> kim@learningmachine.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure we'll get a better candidate in the near future, but ditto
>> on the problems caused by the use of the term "DID registry".
>>
>> In fact, after my presentation at W3C Strong Authentication and Identity
>> Workshop, I decided not to use that term unless I have ample time to
>> qualify/caveat what it means.
>>
>> At minimum, if we just mark it (perhaps create an issue) to revisit, that
>> would probably be fine. Not sure we're in the mood for a naming exercise at
>> the moment.
>>
>> But also +1 to the improvements in this use case document. Great job Joe!
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 8:37 PM =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:01 AM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Based on the feedback from the call Tuesday, I have updated the DID Use
>>>> Cases document.
>>>>
>>>> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-use-cases/
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look and provide feedback. Please use the mailing list
>>>> for general discussion and Github issues for specific places where the
>>>>  spec text could use improvement. Pull requests appreciated if you have
>>>> suggestions for improvements.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Joe, this is a big improvement. Thanks for doing this. I have some
>>> wording suggestions but unfortunately will probably not have time
>>> until RWOT to submit them, and they are minor anyway.
>>>
>>> One terminology question, however: this is the first doc I've seen using
>>> the term "DID registry". While I get why that term seems attractive—it's
>>> the best analogy to the existing world of registries (especially DNS
>>> registries), I have avoided it all this time because the process of writing
>>> a DID to what the spec used to call a "target system" is SO different than
>>> conventional registries which ALWAYS involve centralization. This is true
>>> for every single target system I'm aware of. That's the whole point
>>> of decentralized systems—they don't involve the same power dynamics as
>>> centralized registries.
>>>
>>> So I'm just wondering if the term "DID registries" has become
>>> established or if we can use a better term that reflects the unique nature
>>> of DIDs.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The key difference in this iteration is the addition of an extended
>>>> discussion of what you can do with a DID and the 13 DID actions I've
>>>> distilled from our conversations over the last couple of years. Hopefully
>>>> this addition helps both with the big picture and gives concrete
>>>> functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Note that not all DID Actions are supported by all methods and not all
>>>> will be specified in the DID spec. However, these actions have informed the
>>>> design of DIDs and hence represent the aspirations of the eventual system
>>>> based on DIDs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. I like the section on DID Actions very much, though I do have a
>>> few suggestions to clarify some of them. I'll see if I can get that to you
>>> before RWOT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy
>> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
>> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
>>
>> kim@learningmachine.com
>>
> --
Kim Hamilton Duffy
CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group

kim@learningmachine.com