Create README.md

initial file

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# DID_matrix
+
+Personal ranking tool DID methods [registered at W3C](https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-method-registry/)
+
+## Philosophy
+
+Why are we shedding a light on the quality and status of distinctive DID methods
+* an essential topic for personal freedom
+* real developments are not transparent
+* it is a complex and extensive field
+
+How could the tool be used and what are the expected results?
+* Filter and select DID methods for your organisational or personal use
+* Choose based on objective criteria, scores and personal weights related to your use case
+* Quick fix to skip lengthy assessments
+
+# How it works
+A list of objective criteria has been structured into a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet offers the ability to rank projects (methods) in the DID registry. 
+Based on objective `scores` (compy or explain) and subjective `weights` (opinion).
+
+# Main categories
+A. github / bitbucket activity: code, people, issues, wiki, forks, branches. (numbers and date)
+B. (de)centralisation: any intermediation? (steering groups, ownership, investors, patents, licenses)
+C. Recent communication (number and date of interactions in social media about the method)
+D. Timeline and roadmap (any present? sticked to ….?)
+E. Quality of the method description: Completeness, Interoperability, creativity, uniqueness
+F. Ease of use of the method (operational, webservice for testing, sandbox, examples, blockchains / DLTs to create the DIDs
+
+# Default scores and timestamps
+We'll provide default scores for registered methods against these criteria and use a spreadsheet to calculate marks. We will add the timestamp of our assessment and explain the score. Any users could alter these scores and weights.
+
+# Help us improve the Ranking tool DID_matrix
+Did we miss out on important criteria? Do you think that we should skip one or more criteria that we’ve listed?
+
+**Feel free to contribute**