DID CRUD is a confusing term

[TzviyaSiegman]

I am reading the Use Case document while attempting to write a document that explains DID to people with a limited technical background.

Section 3 "DID Actions" is helpful, but I am confused by the introductory diagram and paragraph about "DID CRUD". I believe this attempts to group all actions into one of 4 categories and the diagram is supposed to explain to the reader where each of the actions described in section 3 falls. I think it would be much clearer to the reader to have subheadings explaining this.

(@jandrieu might recognize my attempts to kill all complicated diagrams from previous experiences working with me ). If the diagram remains, the alt text is not sufficient. It confused me, and I have no vision issues.

[TzviyaSiegman]

one more point - the diagram shows the category "use", which is not part of the introductory text.

[philarcher]

Thanks Tzviya. PR 61 is my suggestion for how to fix this #73

[jandrieu]

Thanks, @TzviyaSiegman Phil and I had a great chat about this today. He's going to take a stab at improving it.

One delightful complication is that we now have several new species of DID Methods for which even the assumptions made in the initial diagram fail. There is also the sloppy treatment of DIDs and DID Documents as "the same thing" when talking about CRUD: updating a DID means updating the DID Document, but presenting a DID is not the same as presenting the DID Document.

So, we need some work to clean this up. We'll let you know when there's something worth evaluating as a potential fix.

[selfissued]

Indeed, this is one of the important kinds of terminology cleanup needed across our document suite.

[peacekeeper]

Quick note that we recently removed the term CRUD from the DID Core spec: w3c/did-core#226

[philarcher]

I wrote a PR for this on 1 April and there's been no further comment so I propose we accept the PR #73 and close this issue in the absence of any further input.