[TERMINOLOGY] DID Method - overloading issues - Representations of DID Documents are written to the Ledger. ...not DIDs. ...misuse of "DID"

[mwherman2000]

In https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/#terminology, it states.

DID Method
A definition of how a specific DID scheme can be implemented on a specific distributed ledger or network, including the precise method(s) by which DIDs and DID Documents can be read, written, and revoked.

1. RE: "including the precise method(s) by which DIDs and DID Documents can be read, written, and revoked."
   The use of "DIDs", "DID Documents" and "DIDs and DID Documents" are being overloaded here and not being disambiguated ...leading to overloading and #confudsion. A DID is an atrributed inside a DID Document. Only DID Documents or representations of DID Documents are read, written, revoked on the Ledger.

2. Misuse of "DID" ...see [PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFICATION] Is this draft specification trying to address too many topics when there should be more than 1 spec #121 (comment)

Reference: Hyperledger Indy/Sovrin Comprehensive Architecture Reference Model (INDY ARM) - latest version - bullets (12) thru (16) in both the diagram, Narration, and principles.

[OR13]

It might help to add ...including the precise method(s) by which DIDs are constructed, how DIDs are resolved to DID Documents, how DID Documents are created, updated, and revoked.

A related confusion is the concept of revoking a DID... to my knowledge this is always implemented by some update to the DID Document. The spec seems to have the same ambiguity in this section:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/#delete-revoke

Maybe the spec should clarify that DIDs cannot be revoked, but a DID that resolves to a DID Document which is revoked, is considered revoked.

[mwherman2000]

@OR13 ...misuse of "DID" ...please see the original comment for this issue (updated) ...or checkout #121 (comment)

[mwherman2000]

dddc566 doesn't address the specific wording issue highlighted at the beginning of this issue. The changes affect many other things but not the wording problem highlighted in this issue. Please re-open this issue until it is resolved.

The key question is: what precisely is being "read, written, and revoked", etc.? I don't believe it is the DID. Only DID Documents are written to the VDR; one case being a degenerate DID Document that only contains a DID. A degenerate DID Document that only contains a DID is still a DID Document. A degenerate DID Document that only contains a DID is not a DID.

Suggestion: Change "DID and DID Document" to "DID Document"

[rhiaro]

Michael, is the following better?

A definition of how a specific DID scheme can be implemented
on a specific distributed ledger or network, including the precise
method(s) by which DIDs are resolved and deactivated and DID Documents
are written and updated.

[mwherman2000]

@rhiaro Yes, thank you.

[rhiaro]

Done! 6399564

[talltree]

Amy, please see note inline below.

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 5:54 PM Amy Guy ***@***.***> wrote: Michael, is the following better: A definition of how a specific DID scheme I believe we should never use the term "DID scheme". It could be very

confusing relative to the definition of "URI scheme" in RFC 3986. "did:" is the one an only DID scheme. We should always use the term "DID method".

…

can be implemented on a specific distributed ledger or network, including the precise method(s) by which DIDs are resolved and deactivated and DID Documents are written and updated. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#127 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADLkTVBRbdjDf0MtPyqVYLtvOudlYaXgks5vS_47gaJpZM4Zc3u4> .

[rhiaro]

@talltree "specific DID scheme" is used throughout the spec with regards to DID method schemes (and "generic DID scheme" is used intermittently for did:). If this terminology is wrong, we might need to open a new issue about it.

[talltree]

@rhiaro Very good point. As you and I had a chance to discuss at the W3C Verifiable Claims Working Group meeting lunch today, if the terminology for talking about the structure of a DID that conforms to a specific DID method is "DID method scheme", I'm fine with that, because it sufficiently differentiates what is meant by a "scheme" from what RFC 3986 defines as "URI scheme".

But we should never say "DID scheme" unless we mean the generic DID scheme ("did:").

Hopefully that avoids the need to raise a new issue. What do you think?