updated verify claim and added validate claim. images updated

[jandrieu]

---

Preview | Diff

[seabass-labrax]

Disambiguation for an international audience.

[philarcher]

Please internationalize the term 'DMV'. This, I assume, is the US agency responsible for drivers licenses. In the UK we'd talk about the DVLA or just 'Swansea' for short (DVLA is based in the Welsh town of Swansea). Please re-phrase to say something like "the relevant government authority" or some such.

This is a nit pick though. I find the text a very useful guide to distinguish between verify and validate. Thank you.

[TallTed]

I've put a bunch of <br><br> within <dd> elements. It would probably be better to use <p>, which often puts a half-line between paragraphs, rather than the full-line of <br><br>.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-09-14

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

2.6. Revisit validation vs verification (issue vc-data-model#1232)

See github issue vc-data-model#1232.

Brent Zundel: Raised by Orie on behalf of Joe... what do you need to write a PR here?

Joe Andrieu: We have text in use cases document now, if people can look at the use case document, that would be helpful.
� PR 149 use cases has that document.

See github pull request vc-use-cases#149.

osamu-n: osamu-n has joined #VCWG.

Manu Sporny: (The group reads through PR 149...).

Joe Andrieu: +1 to Phila and DMV. Please comment and I'll work on it.

Brent Zundel: To summarize -- verification checks syntax and cryptography checks out, validation has to do with business logic, and that's how verification and validation are different from one another.
� If there was a PR in the core data model, that aligned with the use cases text, would that be appropriate to those in the WG?

Manu Sporny: The only thing that jumps out is the use of normative language in the use cases document.
� it's a bit confusing.

Joe Andrieu: is it normative language or not?

Manu Sporny: The core seems correct and is a clarification the VCDM would benefit from.

Brent Zundel: any other comments from folks?

Shigeya Suzuki: +1 on reference to DMV.

Brent Zundel: I hear concern about normative language, much broader concern about use cases document -- issue on use cases document would be a good way to track that.

Manu Sporny: I'd be fine w/ an issue to track that ^.

Brent Zundel: the normative language is bigger than just this PR. so a separate issue on the use cases document is probably the right place to go.
� With that, Joe, do you feel like issue 1232 -- do you feel confident moving forward with a PR at this point?

Joe Andrieu: Yes, seniment feels like this is the right direction. Would like to hear from others on the queue. Challenge with normative language is that this is requirements for the spec, that's why we use normative language.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: We might want to use requirements language instead of normative statements.

Brent Zundel: PR within the next week?

Joe Andrieu: +1 manu I agree we should add that. A note on this PR or in a new issue would tag it for me to follow up on.

[jandrieu]

A few comments added

[jandrieu]

Just need to get that image in place, and we can merge.

[jandrieu]

Images updated. Should be ready to merge. Please take a look, @KDean-GS1

[jandrieu]

Almost there. The Mermaid diagram could use some formatting help. I'll try to fix that.