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

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:30 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
wrote:

> > 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
>

Cool. All in favor of moving from "DID registry" to "DID ledger", please +1.

If you strongly feel you have a better alternative, please advance that.


>
> 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
>