RE: Idea for a Proposal: Notation for resolving a DID identifier directly to the underlying object or collection of objects associated with the DID identifier

RE: verification

In addition to what I said below, for the most part, it is up to the app to decide if it wants to perform verification and then perform the verification (or not) ...regardless, the app (or middleware) needs to first retrieve the resource/object to be able to verify it.

Michael

From: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 7:23 PM
To: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
Cc: public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org) <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Idea for a Proposal: Notation for resolving a DID identifier directly to the underlying object or collection of objects associated with the DID identifier

Bob, we're talking about a *notation* option for directly returning a DID Object based on the value of its DID Identifier. It will (almost) always be a double indirection:
1. To get the DID Document to get the URI of the DID Object's Agent (aka serviceEndpoint), and
2. an indirection through the Agent to get the value of the DID Object.
What's being discussed is a notational convenience - that's all.
Michael Herman

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us<mailto:bob@wyman.us>>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 4:25:38 PM
To: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>>
Cc: public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>) <public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Idea for a Proposal: Notation for resolving a DID identifier directly to the underlying object or collection of objects associated with the DID identifier

If the DID URL did resolve directly to the object itself, wouldn't that eliminate any ability to do any "verifiable" stuff until after the object had been resolved (i.e. after a subsequent fetch of the DID document)? If verifiability is important, and it can't be accomplished without the DID Document, why would it be useful to fetch the object prior to fetching the DID Document?

bob wyman


On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 10:24 PM Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>> wrote:
The default expected behavior when resolving a DID identifier is receive/return all or a portion of the DID Document associated with the identifier (if it exists).

The DID Document may or may not contain the URL for one ore more Agents (aka service endpoints) that can then be interacted with to perform CRUD (or other) operations on the underlying object or collection of objects associated with the DID identifier.

What is a suitable notation to short circuit all of the above steps to simply return the underlying object or collection of objects associated with a particular DID identifier in a more direct way?

In the C programming language, if a variable foo contains the address of an object, a developer can dereference the underlying object using the notation: *foo

What do people think about supporting a similar convention for DID identifiers? ...for example, the string "*did:example:12345" would automatically resolve to and return the underlying object or collection of objects associated with did:example:12345.

This idea would greatly improve developer productivity and adoption, reduce bugs and improve correctness, and decrease the cost of projects that incorporate decentralized technology.

Your thoughts?

Michael Herman
Founder
Trusted Digital Web



Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>