Cleanup terms around "DID scheme"

[rhiaro]

Use "DID URI scheme" and "DID method scheme" instead of "generic" and "specific" DID scheme, re: #127 (comment)

---

Preview | Diff

[msporny]

Suggestions: Change all references to "DID method scheme" to just "DID method". Using "scheme" in both places may confuse folks. While it is true that a "DID method" is a scheme, most readers will miss the nuance and most likely use "DID URI scheme" and "DID method scheme" interchangeably.

[rhiaro]

That works in some places, but I'm not sure about the section 'DID Method Schemes' (L1919) and generally how we differentiate between when the spec is talking about the method-specific character string in the DID, and the DID method itself. Or maybe we don't need to?

Eg. "A DID method specification MUST define exactly one DID method scheme identified by exactly one method name"

[msporny]

Would replacing that with something like: "A DID method specification MUST define further restrictions to the method and specific-idstring parameters defined in the DID URI scheme"?

The goal would be to effectively state: "There is one DID URI scheme, that's in this specification." The "DID URI scheme" may be further restricted by DID method specifications."

... or does that not address the text you're concerned about?

[talltree]

So while I think that generally works, I still think we need to define and use a term for what the previous spec called a "DID method scheme", i.e., the syntax (ABNF) defined by a DID method that restricts the generic DID scheme.

How about we just call it a "DID method syntax"?

Also, I want to be able to continue to use the term "generic DID syntax" for this portion of this spec so that we can mirror the same language from RFC 3986. Read these two paragraphs:

1.1.1.  Generic Syntax

   Each URI begins with a scheme name, as defined in Section 3.1, that
   refers to a specification for assigning identifiers within that
   scheme.  As such, the URI syntax is a federated and extensible naming
   system wherein each scheme's specification may further restrict the
   syntax and semantics of identifiers using that scheme.
   ...
   A parser of the generic URI syntax can parse any URI reference into
   its major components.  Once the scheme is determined, further
   scheme-specific parsing can be performed on the components.  In other
   words, the URI generic syntax is a superset of the syntax of all URI
   schemes.

So I would really like to use the same language to talk about the relationship of DIDs and DID methods, i.e., to be able to say:

The DID generic syntax is a superset of the syntax of all DID method syntaxes.

I'm drafting the proposed new text for the Decentralized Identifiers section of the spec (in this Google doc) to use this language. See what you think.

[tplooker]

@talltree great doc, with the 'service-type' and 'key-type' generic did parameter names should the description state, selects a list of services/publicKeys from the did doc?

[talltree]

@tplooker Yes, that was the conclusion on today's DID spec call. @peacekeeper has the action item to suggest new text for those two parameter descriptions. I'm sure he'd welcome suggestions from you on that.

[rhiaro]

I think this PR is now superseded by #187

[peacekeeper]

I think this PR is now superseded by #187

@rhiaro I think that's partially true, but I feel this PR here still has some good thoughts and content around the "DID scheme" terminology that the other PR doesn't fully address yet. We should probably collaborate to reconcile the two PRs.

[msporny]

The DID TF moved to close this on the 2019-08-01 call, in preference of merging PR #189.