I was wondering how Solid sees itself in relation to this initiative, especially since I read the following in the cancelled (corona) RWOT10 papers:
The Linked Data community has also developed a personal identity mechanism on top of HTTP for that purpose, combining it with some authentication mechanism based on certificates, called WebID.
However, the problems with HTTP based personal identification are known and were among the main issues leading to the DID work: decentralization, persistency, or authentication/verifiability. I.e., DID should become an alternative to HTTP based identifications on the Semantic Web, too; but that can only happen if the four principles of Linked Data, as quoted above, can be upgraded to the DID case as well. What exactly happens if one replaces the term “HTTP” with “DID” in these four statements?
(A side issue: WebID did not really “made it” as a personal ID even among people who are not driven away by the Semantic Web. Personally, I believe one of the reasons is the extreme unfriendliness of all setups, creations, management, etc., of certificates, which is at the heart of WebID. This should be a warning to all things DID: there should be very user-friendly tools around very quickly to allow for everyday users to use this; technology is not enough…)
PS. Though I really like the idea of self-sovereign identity I have misgivings about the role of blockchain in some (not all) of the solution being worked on.