Add Terminology section. Fixes #12. #33
Conversation
peacekeeper
changed the title
| <dt><dfn data-lt="">DID method</dfn></dt> | ||
|
|
||
| <dd> | ||
| A definition of how a specific <a>DID scheme</a> can be implemented |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This definition isn't quite right. the "DID scheme" is "did", the DID method is something different, which I believe is specified within the DID as the method-string.
| <dd> | ||
| A definition of how a specific <a>DID scheme</a> can be implemented | ||
| on a specific <a>distributed ledger</a> or network, including the precise | ||
| method(s) by which <a>DIDs</a> are resolved and deactivated and <a>DID |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should avoid using "method" with a subtly different meaning within the definition of a DID Method. Perhaps "mechanisms by which one resolves and interacts with DIDs and DID Documents".
| @@ -83,6 +83,10 @@ <h2>Introduction</h2> | |||
| <p>This document attempts to explain what you can do with DIDs and why you might care to use them. We start by describing the basic conceptual framework for DIDs, including basic terminology, followed by the actions one can take with a DID. Then we introduce the defining features and benefits of DIDs along with five focal use cases illustrating those features and benefits. | |||
| </p> | |||
| </section> | |||
| <section class="informative"> | |||
| <h1>Terminology</h1> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This section should be flagged as under discussion, referencing w3c/did#4 at a minimum. There's a way in ReSpec to do that automagically.
| <dd> | ||
| A system that is capable of retrieving a <a>DID document</a> for a given <a>DID</a>. | ||
| These systems are specified in the DID Resolution specification | ||
| [[DID-RESOLUTION]]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to figure out how to reference external documents like this. A concern was raised that this reads as if the DID Resolution specification is already completed work, while this document should be informing that work. If we define resolver simply based on the function of retrieving a DID Document, that would probably solve the concern.
|
@jandrieu Good feedback, but note that I simply copied the terms from the did-core spec: Are you proposing to make those changes there as well? |
|
I would. Some of those are fundamentally wrong... like referring to the did method as the schema. |
| <dd> | ||
| A globally unique identifier that does | ||
| not require a centralized registration authority because it is | ||
| registered with <a>distributed ledger technology</a> (DLT) or other form of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to rephrase that anchoring a DID to a distributed ledger is optional, for example did:key did:nacl did:peer are off ledger did's?
|
I believe everything in this PR has now been included in the current draft (see https://w3c.github.io/did-use-cases/#concepts-of-decentralized-identity). This addition has been flagged in various places as highlighted in this commentary and in the WG. I would therefore like to close this PR without merging it. |
|
@peacekeeper Let us know if we can close this out. I think the approach we discussed on Tuesday is pulled into the FPWD. If there's still some edits you'd like, we should probably do it in a separate PR. |
|
Closing this as the FPWD has overtaken this PR with good consensus from the WG. |
Preview | Diff