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

-1

Same reasoning as Joe.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:21 PM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote:

> -1
>
> Between those two, I'd pick registry every time.
>
> We have a hard time explaining to people that DIDs are more than just
> blockchain technology. If we use "ledger" that will become almost
> impossible to convey.
>
> Drummond says
> --
> 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.
> --
>
> I'm not buying that argument. Registries historically accepted whatever
> identifier you provided. It just recorded them.
>
> From Collins:
> A registry is a collection of all the official records relating to
> something, or the place where they are kept.
>
> Or more prosaicly, when you sign up with a wedding registry or similar,
> they don't care what your legal name is. You tell THEM.
>
> It's centralized registries that are the problem, not registries
> themselves.
>
> Also, this is the term *in the spec* for verifiable credentials for
> exactly how we mean it.
>
> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#dfn-verifiable-data-registries
>
> It would be a mistake to split our vocabularies.
>
> -j
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
> Date: 2/18/19 3:39 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
> Cc: Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>, Credentials Community Group <
> public-credentials@w3.org>
> Subject: 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
>>
>