-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 218
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC 0067: Correct JSON-LD context usage DID document conventions #125
Comments
@peacekeeper @talltree are you able to advise on this syntax, I have noted from the examples in the did spec that none of them use JSON-LD at the root of a service block e.g the following.
With this example from the did spec
How do I resolve the context here e.g know about the presence of the description field and spam cost sub object, the
|
@tplooker sorry for not responding sooner, and thanks for pinging again as a reminder! What makes this a bit complicated is that you have to distinguish between 1. the underlying RDF graph model, 2. the JSON-LD format, and 3. the DID Document format. On the RDF level, there's no difference between All the terms have to be defined in a JSON-LD Context, including e.g. JSON-LD allows you to specify a Perhaps an example could look like this:
You also have an example where the |
Also note that there's an open issue whether the |
Tobias: Markus has given such a superb answer I can't add anything to it.
Let us know if you have other questions.
…On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:39 PM Markus Sabadello ***@***.***> wrote:
Also note that there's an open issue whether the id values for public
keys and services should be fully qualified (e.g.
did:example:123456789#keys-1) or relative (e.g. #keys-1):
w3c-ccg/did-spec#97 <w3c-ccg/did-spec#97>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#125?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAZOITJYXBPA37BPYTTX64DQGSHUXA5CNFSM4ICS6PGKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5GJAWQ#issuecomment-525111386>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAZOITIJCOPVUSOA4GQZDWDQGSHUXANCNFSM4ICS6PGA>
.
|
I think this issue should be revisited when the abstract data model and JSON-LD-in-did-docs discussions settle down after the W3C DID WG F2F this week. For now, I'm assuming that this is closable. If not, please reopen. |
On the last Aries WG call we discussed the current state of the DID communication DID document conventions, @talltree raised the point that the current defined convention omits a JSON-LD context notation in the service declaration.
Im opening this issue to ask how this aspect should be expressed.
As defined in the RFC currently we have the below
Note we have
type
which is different to the@type
used by JSON-LD, are these intended to be different?If so would adding JSON-LD support at a service block level look like the following?
The alternative is to opt for a syntax similar to the following
@peacekeeper @talltree your expertise on the DID spec and how it currently defines services would be greatly appreciated :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: