Initial spec draft #1
Conversation
|
|
||
| ## Abstract | ||
|
|
||
| Evaluating the credibiity of digital information about the real world is a difficult problem, one which is not sufficiently addressed by cryptographic signing or blockchain validation. An open, interoperable, cross-domain web of trust could enable robust credibility assessment; a number of projects pursue this goal. LinkedClaims is a minimal standard to enable links between independent claims: each claim must be addressable (ie have a URI), must be about an addressable subject, and must be cryptographically signed. Several desirable features are also identified, such as the ability to make a determinate hash of claim content. The LinkedClaim pattern already exists in several independent projects and implementations; by defining profiles or mappings for these existing data structures to a LinkedClaim data model, we enable linking them together without requiring changes to their native formats. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"progressive trust" is a pretty powerful term here that you might want to leverage.
Overall, abstract looks great!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might also want to mention what this specification's scope is briefly:
This specification defines the fundamental requirements for a claim to be classified as a "linked claim." It introduces the concept of a LinkedClaim profile, outlines how an ecosystem can achieve conformance with the linked claim requirements, and provides guidance on specifying additional requirements through a profile. However, it does not define any specific profile or provide an implementation guide, which are addressed in separate documents.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"progressive trust" is a pretty powerful term here that you might want to leverage.
Overall, abstract looks great!
Yes this is going to reference a companion paper by Jim Goodell from IEEE - its @jgoodell2 's term!
currently we are manually rendering and deploying
| * **MAY** have a subject that itself is a claim | ||
| * **MAY** be a W3C Verifiable Credential or similar digital credential specification | ||
| * **MAY** provide a way for the signer to mutate or revoke the claim | ||
| * **MAY** provide an inbox or reply-to address to notify of claims made about this claim |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dmitrizagidulin do you think the activitypub inbox method should be mentioned here
| The LinkedClaims specification is being developed alongside several complementary initiatives: | ||
|
|
||
| * [Progressive Trust](TBD) - A framework for building trust through incremental verification and validation of claims | ||
| * [digest Multibase Hashlink](TBD) - TBD |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dmitrizagidulin should i link to a document about the hashlink here?
| Decentralized Web Node is a _DRAFT_ specification under development within the [Decentralized Identity Foundation](https://identity.foundation) (DIF). It is an active work item of the [Linked Claim Incubation Lab at DIF](https://github.com/decentralized-identity/labs/blob/main/proposals/linked_claims/001_proposal.md) It incorporates requirements and learnings from diverse stakeholders across sectors into a shared specification that meets the collective needs of the community. | ||
|
|
||
| The specification will be updated to incorporate feedback, from DIF members and the wider community, with a reference implementation being developed that exercises the features and requirements defined here. We encourage reviewers to submit [GitHub Issues](https://github.com/decentralized-identity/labs-linkedclaims/issues) as the means by which to communicate feedback and contributions. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we could put an introduciton here with more specific motivations and reasons this is important, or that can go in the companion paper. @andorsk any preference? I think the paper is important because it is where we can put concrete implementations
|
|
||
| linkStyle 0,1 stroke:#666,stroke-width:2px,stroke-dasharray: 5 | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
core pattern is great. linking works really well.
Suggest that add some commentary against the diagram, but overall this is excellent.
|
|
||
| A LinkedClaim: | ||
|
|
||
| * **MUST** have a subject that can be any valid URI |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These need to link to proper specifications. Valid, use the RFC's in IETF. I think I shared them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i thought i put that up in terminology, i can also make them a link.
No description provided.