Create resolvable json-ld for DID Doc examples #55
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Christian Bormann <[email protected]>
| @@ -173,7 +174,6 @@ If clients want to continue to retrieve and use the `endpoint` [[ref: ATTRIB]] t | |||
|
|
|||
| ``` json | |||
| "diddocContent" : { | |||
| "@context" : [ "https://identity.foundation/didcomm-messaging/service-endpoint/v1" ], | |||
| "service": [ | |||
| { | |||
| "id": "did:indy:sovrin:123456#did-communication", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, but this is still not a complete JSON-LD DIDdoc because we still need a resolvable context for the DIDcomm service. If we want to be correct, we'd either need this context or restrict it to a JSON DIDdoc.
If you look at the example DIDdoc in the JSON-LD playground, you'll see that all the unknown properties in the service object get dropped during JSON-LD processing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, i couldn't find any context to use here - the did-core example only shows:
{
"service": [{
"id":"did:example:123#linked-domain",
"type": "LinkedDomains", // external (property value)
"serviceEndpoint": "https://bar.example.com"
}]
}
LinkedDomains is defined here: https://identity.foundation/.well-known/did-configuration/v1
I wasn't really sure what to use here - i guess we have to provide a context for did-communication ourselves ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@swcurran @TelegramSam Would it be possible to host an appropriate context e.g. at https://identity.foundation or https://didcomm.org/ ? This context would not be Indy specific but define the properties according to Aries RFC 67
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we would need 2 documents?
- one definining
did-communication(aries rfc) - and one defining
DIDCommMessaging(didcommv2)
Unless I am blind (which very well might be the case) all examples for didcommv2 are also given without a resolvable context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's this: https://didcomm.org/messaging/contexts/v2/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Apparently, I am blind. This isn't used anywhere in the examples in https://identity.foundation/didcomm-messaging/spec/ and only in https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/#didcommmessaging?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not certain where this sits based on the comments. Is this ready to merge?
Let's finalize at the meeting tomorrow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We still don't have a didcommv1context that is resolvable as far as I understand. It is marked with a TODO in the text for the time being (::: todo Fix DIDcommv1 / aries rfc 0067 compliant context).
|
Besides the open point with the context for the DID Communication service, I think this is a valuable PR. It is really painful to see lots of invalid JSON-LD examples everywhere |
Signed-off-by: Christian Bormann <[email protected]>
|
Do we want to merge this in its current state as an example and adjust it once we start touching these points in the aries implementations (and need a valid context for the service endpoint according to https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-rfcs/tree/main/features/0067-didcomm-diddoc-conventions) ? |
|
I think it would be good to merge it. Those that know more about contexts and the state of the DIDComm contexts can weigh in before or after. Let's wait a few more days for feedback or other approaches to this one. @TelegramSam -- comments? |
The main focus was to try to create fully resolvable json-ld and updating to be compliant to the examples given in did-core
Fixes #51
Signed-off-by: Christian Bormann [email protected]