UI terminology for calculated validities

[Gabriel Niebler]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am 24.04.2014 11:13, schrieb Peter Lebbing:
> I think "authenticity" covers the overtones much better than
> "validity", now that you mention it. It even makes me wonder why it
> wasn't chosen in the first place :). You have convinced me that it
> is the better term to use.

Thank you very much!

> I'm not enthousiastic about "ownership", because it feels like a
> synonym to "User ID" in OpenPGP context.

Yes, I simply posted both options that had occurred to me, but
thinking a bit more about it  I agree that "authenticity" is the
better term.

The word "ownership" only works with another word (established,
confirmed, ascertained), because it is not a property of the UserID
itself. I can't say a UserID "has ownership", it's the other way
around. And the question is not "Who owns this UserID?", but rather
"Who owns this key? Is it the entity behind this UserID?" - that's not
nearly as clear as "Is this UserID authentic (for this key)?".
Finally, speaking of computed, fractional values of ownership sounds
weird, too.

So yes, "authenticity" gets the point across better and would also
work as a drop-in replacement of "validity".

Cheers
 gabe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTWYyEAAoJEO7XEikU4kSz4EsIAJ/nUGES7nLxOkJeyJCeB9s6
tg3dt0d7S32cqXSetttGAproFIDu17wwNHT1Fq+zBRI/kuATy+SkwzDh/j5GCVy2
h5wpgXGJWLQJgpVg5K/4Xe8pHBR4L+C+2q7mbXD12gGyAEOOQDU9LmijNH4eLFSH
jYLp7ndd8d867VgBoiOG/GGLhi19SGRn+cH0fbMkGsFuSGy3pDMMSB6JRcAAkza8
1t6LmcqCbXHNoXCdXVJ0ia23wkyPenGOe7qY9wlZwHS/X+kZOG60uLmmWzTtNVi+
tJ0hU9tre+6aUS9wyB1pv2iH1zFOnRFOkV5+2wUKJcI2ZI0q5retZgXSl5v9lSw=
=BCq0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----