Do not permit properties or parameters that duplicate those in DID Core

[rhiaro]

I propose to add text along the lines of the following to the Registration Process list, if this is a correct and agreed criterion:

"Any addition to the DID Core Registries that is a property or parameter MUST NOT have the same name as a property or parameter (respectively) that is already defined in the DID Core specification. In other words, extensions to DID Core cannot override, redefine, or change the meanings of core properties or parameters."

[OR13]

I would object to the current language, but I would be ok with the following:

"Any addition to the DID Core Registries that is a property or parameter having the same name as a property or parameter (respectively) that is already defined in the DID Core specification MUST include a link to the did core definition if one exists. In other words, extensions to DID Core cannot override, redefine, or change the meanings of core properties or parameters."

I'm not ok with preventing us from defining things that are "sorta defined" in did core... for example:

assertionMethod, authentication, etc....

These verification methods, don't have links, is some cases they are referenced in a block like:

https://w3c.github.io/did-core/#public-keys

providing a link to such a block is not very helpful, whereas providing a link to controller, is... : https://w3c.github.io/did-core/#dfn-did-controllers

If we can't link to the term in did core (like we can with controller), we should be allowed to define it in did core registries... as terms become defined in did core, we can replace the defintion with links.... does that work?

[rhiaro]

That makes sense as an interim while we get the terms in DID Core sorted out.

I definitely agree we need proper anchored definitions of the terms in DID Core, which should include all terms in the DID Core JSON-LD context. Working out the definitions in the Property Registry (as if they were an extension) and then moving them into DID Core when there's consensus seems like a great way to make progress on them.

In the long run, I don't think we should have anything "sorta defined" in DID Core, and I feel we should have strong language to dissuade other people from taking over core properties, either accidentally or on purpose.

[OR13]

can we close this, given your proposal: #28 ?

[rhiaro]

I still think we need wording warning extensions against trying to override terms from DID Core, which isn't mentioned in #28. I can make a version of the text that makes it clear I'm referring to extensions, and not just the contents of the registry in general (to address #22 (comment)) and make a PR