search

w3c / did-resolution

RELEASED DRAFT: Decentralized Identifier Resolution (DID Resolution) 0.2 Specification
https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/
Other
17 stars 9 forks source link

update clarification around handling of conflicting id's in json-ld #67

Closed kdenhartog closed 3 years ago

kdenhartog commented 3 years ago

This only addresses issue #65 for JSON-LD. I didn't spot an easy way to slot it in for other formats - nor was I sure if it made sense to process these differently. I figured it goes in the right direction though and was worth adding something in at least.

peacekeeper commented 3 years ago

@kdenhartog sorry for being slow with reviewing this. I agree with adding your sentence about uniqueness of the identifiers.

But in addition to that, shouldn't we perhaps also keep the current language around "relative IRIs" and "base IRI". Is there a reason why your PR removes that part?

kdenhartog commented 3 years ago

@kdenhartog sorry for being slow with reviewing this. I agree with adding your sentence about uniqueness of the identifiers.

But in addition to that, shouldn't we perhaps also keep the current language around "relative IRIs" and "base IRI". Is there a reason why your PR removes that part?

All good, just been progressing this one in the side time at the moment. The reason I removed it was because I was inferring that the relative and base IRIs would need to be converted to absolute IRIs in order to comply with this. However, on second read of you pointing this out I think it's actually not clear enough for the reader to infer that.

How about if I say something like this "If the identifier of the graph node is not unique, including if a relative or base IRI mapped to an absolute IRI collides with a different graph node's absolute IRI, then an error MUST be thrown."

I think this would make it more clear about the specifics of what needs to be checked for and how it should be handled.

peacekeeper commented 3 years ago

I think this would make it more clear about the specifics of what needs to be checked for and how it should be handled.

Yes I think that sounds better.. If you update the PR we can merge that..

kdenhartog commented 3 years ago

I think this would make it more clear about the specifics of what needs to be checked for and how it should be handled.

Yes I think that sounds better.. If you update the PR we can merge that..

@peacekeeper Updated this now with the text we agreed on above. Thanks for the review