- From: steve capell <steve.capell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:13:05 +1000
- To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>, Chris Gough <chris.gough@gosource.com.au>, Richard Spellman <richard.spellman@gosource.com.au>, Marek Laskowski <mareklaskowski@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAEMprtJfqj1Q3LfEQ=aWdb+G+BZGeg7rs190ugwM6eqhgW2q1g@mail.gmail.com>
Hello colleagues, I'd like to apologise in advance for dropping this new question / use case upon you so soon after the one about VC trust chains for cross-border documents - but hopefully you'll find this use case interesting enough to justify a little of your time. A "consignment" is probably the most fundamentally important thing in cross-border trade. It represents the movement of goods from consignor to consignee. It is created by a transport service provider (eg fedex) on request of a transport service buyer (which can be the consignor or consignee depending on incoterms). In today's paper world it is described by a paper document called a "bill of lading" (sea freight) or an "airway bill" (airfreight). There are road freight versions too. Consignments also exist in a hierarchy. For example an "ocean bill" represents the transport contract between a forwarder (eg DBSchenker) and a carrier (eg Maersk) whilst a "house bill" represents the transport contract between a trader (eg ACME) and a forwarder (eg DB Schenker). A "House Bill" represents the common scenario where an intermediary buys a container from a carrier and then re-sells space on that container to multiple traders. Master Airway bills / Ocean Bills already have a unique naming convention - for example the lufthansa cargo AWB at https://lufthansa-cargo.com/toolbox has ID 020-22469812 where "202" is the IATA issued code for Lufthansa cargo. In the paper world, the bill is an authoritative legal document that is referenced by many other documents. In fact the content on a bill is often duplicated and extended on other documents. For example, the certificate of origin mentioned in the previous email thread about trust chains has maybe 50 data elements, all but 3 of which duplicate consignment information already on the bill (ie goods description, value, tariff code, consignee, consignor, etc). if instead the certifciate of origin could just reference a discoverable and non-repudiable consignment document then the certificate really only need say "as an authorised body (eg chamber of commerce), I certify that the goods referenced by consignment XYZ123 comply with orgin criteria ABC under Free Trade Agreement XYZ". Basically 3 new data elements instead of 50. But the certificate of origin is only one of dozens of documents that reference a consignment. - regulatory declarations (to both the exporting and importing regulator) reference and duplicate consignment information. - financial instruments like letters of credit reference and duplicate consignment information. - and so on. in many cases, each stakeholder creates their own reference for the consignment. Australian Border Force for example calls is a "Customs reference number" or CRN. Traders create their own shipping reference numbers. The proliferation of identifiers for the same thing and the challenges of confident data linking have led the WCO (World Customs Organistion) to push for a UCR "Unique consignment reference" that all stakeholders in the supply chain can reference. See http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/facilitation/instrument-and-tools/tools/ucr.aspx. There is a fatal flaw with the WCO model in that they envision the issuer as a centralised cartel member like GS1 or DUNS. That's partially because they cant envision a document discovery model that doesn't include some kind of uber central registry. I think the decentralised model offered by DID/VC offers a more scalable, privacy preserving, higher integrity approach that can still achieve the same goal. If this can be made to work then it is genuinely transformative for the international supply chain and will shave a fair chunk off the "cost of trade" - the value of which is measured in $ trillions / year globally. With all this in mind, here's some naive questions for you all: 1. Can DIDs be used to identify things (eg a consignment) as well as entities (eg people or organisations)? 2. Would the actual data about the consignment be contained in a VC or in a DID related document ? It's worth noting here that the bill is a commercial in confidence (ie non-public) document. 3. In order to blend with the non-DID/VC world it's reasonable to expect that various EDI documents might reference a consignment via it's DID- eg did:{some method}:{some uuid}. Or would it be better to reference the consignment as a VC via a URI/QR code that is the key to discovery? This depends on the answer to 1 & 2. ie is the bill of lading a VC issued by a party identified by a DID or is the bill of lading itself a DID? 4. If the UCR is a DID did:{some method}:{some uuid} - then which of the bewildering array of existing methods would be most appropriate to use where the goal is a to use the DID as a discovery key to access a (possibly encrypted) document. ie "I have the DID now I want the data in the document this DID references" I expect (hope) that this will spark a bit of a discussion and that more questions and answers will ensue. -- Steve Capell
Received on Saturday, 29 August 2020 02:13:33 UTC