Clarify headings for dereferencing primary/secondary resource

[peacekeeper]

This expands the names of the sections about dereferencing the primary/secondary resources.

I'm actually not sure if I am in favor of merging this, since it results in longer headning. But I wanted to capture this since it has been brought up in last week's DID WG meeting.

[danpape]

I agree adding these clarifications this way would make the subsection headings quite large and may mess up the nice table of contents on the respec page. Could the verbiage about what we mean by primary and secondary resources be put in the "4.3 Algorithm" intro paragraph?

[pchampin]

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 12 September 2024.

[mccown]

I would be happy either way on this. The extra text will help guide readers -- especially new readers. However, I don't think it's strictly necessary. Generally, I'm in favor of things that help new adopters.

[peacekeeper]

I agree with @danpape 's comment. The problem here is not the headings, it's that maybe the meanings of "primary resources" and "secondary resource" aren't clear enough. I was trying to use them as they are defined in RFC3986, but am also open to using different terms.

[decentralgabe]

Suggested change

	<h2>Dereferencing the Primary Resource (DID document or other resource)</h2>
	<h2>Dereferencing the Primary Resource (DID Document or other resource)</h2>

do we keep these both caps?

[pchampin]

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 19 September 2024.

View the transcript

DID Resolution PR 88 / 89

"w3c/did-resolution#88

w3c/did-resolution#89"

Simplify dereferencing of the DID fragment based on the media type

Wip: I put this on the agenda. We talked about it last week. Should the primary resource be the DID Document? it says 'first you get the DID Document in resolution, then primary resource...'

<swcurran> +1 to WIP about primary document

markus_sabadello: agree, lets not have a big discussion about the naming of primary and secondary resource. I have been using the terms as introduced in original rfc3936
… PR 88 is an attempt to remove language related to processing the fragment. This depends on the media type
… Currently the text is specific to a JSONLD document. The intent of the PR is to simplify and remove this part
… regarding the discussion of primary and secondary resource lets have a special topic about it. It effects a lot of things

manu: Fine with 88 being merged. Agree there was confusion with primary and secondary resource. I also found the current spec text clear on that
… not blocking 88

decentralgabe: We will plan on a special topic call for 88 and 80 around this resource discussion

---

[peacekeeper]

During today's DID WG meeting we discussed that we should try to avoid the terms "primary resource" and "secondary resource" altogether. @jandrieu and @peacekeeper will look at this and propose better terminology.

[pchampin]

This was discussed during the did meeting on 10 October 2024.

View the transcript

DID Resolution Issue/PR Processing

burn: Contact the chairs if anyone would suggest an improvement

markus_sabadello: let's start with new issues

<markus_sabadello> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Apending-close

markus_sabadello: first with pending close issues

burn: note that, in the agenda email, we listed these issues.
… We'll be using this process until the end of the thursday meeting to object to the close.

<TallTed> I strongly recommend such searches be ordered by "least recently updated" to keep the churn active, e.g., https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Apending-close+sort%3Aupdated-asc

burn: the point is, we'll review these quickly today, but the expectation is that you are too look for these in the agenda and speak up or comment in the issue if you have an objection
… so we will not be spending time unless there is a concern (as a general rule)

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#57

markus_sabadello: Proposal to rename one of the resolution functions
… Resolve and ResolveStream
… This issue is a proposal to rename ResolveStream. That's already happened. I posted a comment 2 weeks ago. No further discussion

burn: any objections to closing?

markus_sabadello: I'll close them after the call

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#30

markus_sabadello: Issue 30, several years old. Has to do with dereferencing discussion at TPAC
… "The result of dereference can be a DID document, but it can also be something else"
… Looking at this issue after a long time, I think the current specification addresses this. I see 3 thumbs up to that comment.
… So, if no objections, we'll be closing this.

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#29

markus_sabadello: also several years old, about the definition of the term did resolver.
… In the current specification, both terms are defined formally in terminology section. Also two thumbs up.
… Any objections?

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#21

markus_sabadello: Issue 21 about removing the term DID Reference from DID core to DID Resolution.
… I think this is now obsolete. We don't use that term in any spec.
… Same discussion was also in did-core, which was closed. So I think this one can be as well.
… Any objections?

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#11

markus_sabadello: All methods must have a name of at least three characters.
… This seems like a DID Core issue, not in DID Resolution
… Similar issue in DID-core, which has also been closed.
… For all of these issues, it seems straightforward to close them.
… Since they are older issues, we may not be getting engagement from the initial poster, but unless there are objections, seems like we should close

decentralgabe: If we mark it pending close and give it a week, that would address the older participants

burn: requirements vary from group to group. In past groups, we've made the point to actively reach out by email and ask for engagement. Then you can comment that in the issue.
… so ping in the issue, then email, then document that email in the issue.
… That let's us show we've done what we can to address the concerns of the original poster
… For these, I think we're good, but going forward that's a nice improvement to our process

burn: you have 10 more minutes if you like

<markus_sabadello> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22good+first+issue%22

markus_sabadello: one other thing. A few issues are tagged as "Good First Issue"
… Two of them have been assigned. One has not.
… These are a good way to contribute, especially if you might not be familiar with deeper technical issues.
… We'll try to find more like that and encourage PRs
… A few that might be ready to close

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#23

markus_sabadello: Issue 23 is about result of dereferencing

<manu> JoeAndrieu: Looking at the backlog. There is an opportunity here to make a distinction -- how we talk about a DID with and without a trailing slash... but I don't know if that helps us. I need to look at this in more detail, it's five years old, we can close it, if problem still exists, we can raise a new issue again.

<manu> markus_sabadello: I think this might be obsolete by now?

<manu> JoeAndrieu: Yeah, sounds like it might be.

<manu> markus_sabadello: We will have until next call to look at it or raise a new issue if this comes back.

<manu> JoeAndrieu: Sounds good to me.

manu: I'm wondering what is the ... I'm fine with closing it. I'm wondering where did we land?
… the response from a resolver is a resolution result, which might contain a did document?
… Is that where we landed?

markus_sabadello: that's right the resolution response might contain a did document, but dereferencing might return something else

manu: i think it's already addressed (as opposed to an older issue that isn't valid)

markus_sabadello: this was from when we didn't have a did resolution result, we were just returning DID documents
… That has been addressed

<JoeAndrieu> +1

manu: +1

markus_sabadello: also to be aware of, from discussions at TPAC, when we talked about path, query, and fragment parts.
… we talked about different patterns in the past and how much of that should be in the resolution spec itself or in did core, or in both.
… If people come up with certain features that use the path or query string, how does that fit in and where does it get specified?

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#85

markus_sabadello: There are two open issues for new DID parameters with certain functionality

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#90

markus_sabadello: The first introduces version-type the second XYZ as parameters
… Please comment about where these should go and whether or not it should be did-method-specific or standardized across methods

burn: ok, you have about another 5 minutes if you'd like

markus_sabadello: ok. I'm wondering if we can merge that pull request

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#89

markus_sabadello: or if anyone has new thoughts about the discussion we had about primary resource and secondary resource
… there is an open PR where I tried to improve the headings
… to help with that. I'm wondering if people have opinions.
… I would actually prefer not to merge because it makes the headings longer
… But the algorithm talks about dereferencing the primary resource and secondary resource
… This PR adds explanation to the headings

manu: I think it is unfortunate that the initial wording was primary and secondary resource, as that is so abstract it is confusing.
… +1 to comment about section titles get hard

<TallTed> +1 to manu's suggestion

manu: maybe we can call it derereferencing a DID? or a #fragment
… +1 to not merge this, but maybe we can have did document and fragment as the terms

markus_sabadello: there is something that right now is called a primary resource.
… there needs to be a name for what you get when you dereference the did document
… For example, dereferencing the DID URL resource may be a better phrase

manu: yes. that was my thinking. Name the types of things you can dereference.
… A use case where you get a DID Document. A case where you dereference a fragment in a resource. And a third case where it's neither of those.
… Related Resource? (Not suggesting that, but if we name it, it will help)

markus_sabadello: this needs to be extensible. we can't imaging all the things they dereference to.
… but i think we can use better terms than Primary & Secondary. I'll try to do that.

<manu> JoeAndrieu: I would like to try my hand at writing this PR, don't know when I'm going to get to it, but want to help.

---

[pchampin]

This was discussed during the did meeting on 17 October 2024.

View the transcript

w3c/did-resolution#89

markus_sabadello: This is about primary and secondary resource, come up with better names, we mentioned that Joe and myself would try to propose better terminology, hasn't happened yet. Marked it as "do not merge", we don't want to use "primary/secondary" resource terminology. We will just keep this open.

manu: I thought we discussed this previously?

markus_sabadello: We did discuss it on the last call and you're right, but we need a better term, we need a term for ... what is the term when you dereference a URL... what's that thing, not a primary resource... we could just call it "first part dereferencing" and then "fragment dereferencing"... what is the thing when you dereference a DID URL w/o path and fragment?

markus_sabadello: Just a reminder for people to think more about this.

Wip: Yes, Markus and Joe are going to propose something.

---

[peacekeeper]

Marking this PR as pending-close, and I created a separate issue where we can discuss this further before attempting another PR: #94