Terminology needs to be aligned and KERI only question (related) about tswg-did-method-webs-specification

[2byrds]

@henkvancann I am okay with more generic terms for future efforts. But to avoid the delay of the ideal case, for v1.0 we should remain KERI specific and so the KERI specific terms should remain.

[2byrds]

Related to #101

[2byrds]

Also mentioned on slack by @swcurran here https://trustoverip.slack.com/archives/C05JPQBN571/p1704325268194999

[2byrds]

From our meeting today:
ISO bar is high. 'See KERI spec' is appropriate at times. For instance 'KERI witness' is necessary or not? They are useful for the story but non-normative?
Analogy of HTTP 1.0 to 1.1 and our spec 1.0 and 1.1 milestones where we march towards ISO level rigor in the spec. Our 1.0 is a good starting point and provides momentum. 1.1 and beyond continues to mature towards ISO rigor.

[2byrds]

The Task Force would like your review of our latest changes @darrellodonnell to see if we are on the right track.

[darrellodonnell]

I can't really add a lot of value right now. I see deep references to KERI that are non-normative and if the group is ok with that for the v1.0 then that's fine.

Is the intent to publish the specification as an "Implementor Draft" or as a formal/published ToIP specification. I'd advise the former (i.e. Implementor Draft).

I think that decision (Implementor Draft vs. formal specification) is the more important thing right now. This is along the lines of IETF and it's "We believe in rough consensus and running code" ethos. If you have the consensus and want to focus on running code for now, then great. Get the implementor draft out, get code running, and revise - then go to formal specification.

Note that the IETF approach is very different from an ISO approach.

[2byrds]

@darrellodonnell there has been significant movement on our side and wanted to check-in with you to see if we can resolve this issue.

[darrellodonnell]

OK - how has it been resolved? i.e. what do I need to look at/read?

[2byrds]

@darrellodonnell With this PR we have pulled the informative information that is implementors Guide section at the very end of the spec https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-did-method-webs-specification/pulls and of course have indicated everything that is informative in our previous PRs.
Also @henkvancann would like to weigh in on including ToIP level terminology with the spec.

[henkvancann]

I go along with Darrell saying we have to define our own did:webs terms here and put the wording less KERI-ish.
As a matter of fact, the security side of did:webs is highly connected with KERI. As long as we don't have another identifier system behind did:webs as to offer the same features.

Soon we will have three options in terminology design under the umbrella of ToIP:

1. roll your own: define new criteria in term definitions
2. xref an existing term definitions
3. xref and comment / add context to an existing definition

Unfortunately the last option (3) is not yet available (and option 2/3 need authentication, for you might end up referencing something you did not choose back when you ref-ed it) and we need to keep track of history. Git commit hashes could help us out.

For the time being we could make a list of terms we need to change/ make more generic to invite other SSI systems into did:webs: [[def : newterm ]] and in the description

[[def : Key Event Stream ]]
 ~ This is an example of a more generalized term to be less [[xref : KE, KERI]]-ish 
but we're still tlaking about the same concept [[xref: KE, KERI event stream]].

This way we could temporarily circumvent the "problem"?