Decentralized Identities are simply Credentials and should be defined/called out as such... about did-use-cases

[TallTed]

It does not make sense to me to consider any kind of "identity" to be a credential, either verifiable or not.

You say yourself --

a Decentralized Identity is simply a (Verifiable) Credential associated with a Subject by a Decentralized Identifier

Every element of that sentence is important.

In other words, a Decentralized Identity is not only a (Verifiable) Credential -- it is a combination of (at least) three things, including a (Verifiable) Credential, a Subject, and a Decentralized Identifier.

My identity may be supported, represented, and/or substantiated by various credentials -- passport, driver's license, birth certificate, etc. -- but none of these are my identity.

The "natural partitioning" you are trying to reveal seems rather to be further obscured by the blurring here.

Perhaps it might clarify things if we were to discuss a concrete hypothetical example -- maybe a club membership? -- rather than speaking only of generics.

[mwherman2000]

Read #57 (comment) first.

[TallTed]

@mwherman2000 - I have read that. It doesn't change anything I've said.

[mwherman2000]

@TallTed I'm curious about any alternatives you have to suggest for the "DID" wording confusion/issues in the use case document?

This has been an ongoing problem for literally "years" now and the problem still remains ...a situation that I don't believe is acceptable in specification documents.

[jandrieu]

Not applicable. Closing.

DIDs are identifiers, which may be used as part of an identity system. We do not treat "Decentralized Identities" as credentials.