Re: DID Method Registry Needs Private-Public and Purpose Columns? [Was: Re: Fwd: New member - and (hopefully) an interesting use case - and a question]

I suppose it's stating the obvious - because Steven references my question
- but I'd certainly be in favour of adding information to the registry that
helps users (ie implementers) know how to navigate it.

also, not sure whether this is allowed within W3C governance rules - but
some kind of implementation / uptake count and feedback mechanism could be
helpful.  As a newbie my review of this list would apply 2 filters:

   1. which of these is the right functional fit for my needs?  - the
   columns suggested by Steven will help a lot with that.
   2. which of the ones that claim to fit my needs have some evidence of
   uptake?  if at least one independent organisation other than the publisher
   has successfully used the publishers method then that gives me some
   confidence.

I suspect if I could scan that list to answer those two questions then I'd
probably zero in on two or three out of 60 and the proliferation problem
would sort itself out very quickly.

kind regards,

On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 02:05, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> On 2020-05-26 8:31 pm, steve capell wrote:
>
>
>
>    1. the method part of the DID is important for interoperability and,
>    although I can see the value in letting anyone setup a new method, there is
>    a risk of explosion - as https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-method-registry/ seems
>    to already show.  Looking at this list of methods, I really have no idea
>    what problem each is solving, why there are so many, and whether I should
>    re-use one or create another.  I'd be keen to discuss that problem with
>    someone!
>
>
> +1
>
> It seems it was only yesterday there were 6 entries in the DID Methods
> registry, and now there are 59.
>
> I believe developers (as well as outsiders with general interest about
> what's happening here) will want a way to easily sort this list for
> purposes, either to find someone to contract, to know whether to start one
> from scratch, or to know if a FOSS Method is already in development for a
> given purpose.
>
> So:
>
> I'd like to propose adding either one or two columns to the Method
> Registry. If two columns are possible, perhaps the first might say one of
> three things:
>
> Private Internal / Private for Public Use / Public Free Open Source
>
> And the second column, beside that, is a brief description (one or two
> sentences) about what it does. IMO the "Private Internal" case wouldn't
> need to enter a description, but the other two would need to do so.
>
> If something like this was done, it would be relatively easy to scan the
> list and see which methods are of interest and contact the relevant
> developers to see the status. Otherwise, with 59 (and maybe hundreds soon?)
> it will be a herculean effort to try to figure out what exists already and
> what needs to be done.
>
> And also, since the election is upcoming, I'd like to know if any of those
> running for Chairs of the group would agree that something like this should
> be done.
>
>
> Steven Rowat
>


-- 
Steve Capell