Re: PROPOSED WORK ITEM: DID-Linked Resources Specification

Thanks everyone for joining the call today,

I think we had some really meaningful discussion and I'm looking forward to
the next steps for this work item.

If you couldn't make it, here is the slide deck we used - I'll also pop it
into the existing work item PR.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-YmtlteNTrerRY_l0S5jl6IX9uM6-_8jeD523jZfSds/edit#slide=id.g1347c024e1b_0_116

All the best,

Alex

On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 at 22:11, Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com> wrote:

> In my mind, the differences are that:
>
> - DWNs use the existing "service" parameter to select a service endpoint
> from the DID document, and then define additional parameters to identify
> resources behind that service. The functionality of those parameters are
> independent of the DID method.
>
> - The work done by cheqd/ToIP is about defining parameters which identify
> resources that are independent of any specific service in the DID document,
> but are (at least partially) dependent on the underlying DID method.
>
> I think both are potentially reusable and should be aligned if possible,
> but I don't think they're exactly the same.
>
> Markus
> On 12/7/22 03:14, Daniel Buchner wrote:
>
> I'll note that the goal of this proposed work item is the very crux of
> what we're building in the joint DIF/W3C Decentralized Web Nodes work item,
> which enables all objects, file types, schemas, etc., to be addressed in a
> DID-relative way that delivers an implicit, inferrential API without any
> need to craft things specific to a given set of objects/files. Given this
> is already a joint work item of the the two orgs, can we first examine it
> and do a call about how it delivers on the stated goals of this proposal,
> and/or modify it to do so?
>
> There will be 1:1 overlap if we spin up a new work item to do the same
> thing, and it would be unfortunate if we created competing efforts almost
> immediately as a solution/spec is in the later stages of development.
>
> How about a call to review sometime before the holidays or just after in
> January?
>
> - Daniel
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022, 7:56 PM Alex Tweeddale <alex@cheqd.io> wrote:
>
>> Dear CCG,
>>
>> The formal new work item proposal is in the GitHub issue below:
>> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/236
>>
>> We are proposing to establish a new work item focussed on creating a W3C
>> specification for DID-Linked Resources, which will tie in closely with the
>> existing DID Resolution spec.
>>
>> This work aims to create a standardized way of referencing,
>> dereferencing and fetching digital resources (schemas, trust & status
>> lists, visual representations of Verifiable Credentials, governance
>> documents, logos).
>>
>> We aim to achieve this by associating digital resources with
>> Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and organizing in DID-Linked Collections,
>> where each individual resource is identifiable through its own DID URL.
>>
>> Previous work on this topic, leading to this new work item:
>>
>> - (cheqd) Context for DID-Linked Resources
>> <https://docs.cheqd.io/identity/guides/did-linked-resources/technical-composition-of-did-linked-resources>
>> - (cheqd) Technical composition of DID-Linked Resources
>> <https://docs.cheqd.io/identity/guides/did-linked-resources/technical-composition-of-did-linked-resources>
>> - (ToIP) Trust over IP Draft Specification on DID-Linked Resources, to
>> be superseded by the W3C work item
>> <https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/DID-Linked+Resources+Specification>
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to getting this kicked off!
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> Alex Tweeddale
>>
>> Product Manager & Governance Lead
>>
>> Schedule a meeting
>> <https://calendly.com/alex-tweeddale/introductory-call>
>>
>> cheqd.io <https://www.cheqd.io/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/cheqd_io>
>> | LinkedIn <https://linkedin.com/company/cheqd-identity> | Telegram
>> <https://t.me/cheqd>
>>
>