A reusable badge to be earned

Claims are stand-alone attributes, like a diploma without the recipient's name filled in, or a unique rubber stamp. They can be thought of as badges, where the value is dependent on who issued it. These badges are a way to incentivize and validate contributions to the scientific record, and allow building of credibility by recognition in the community.

They are connected to the creator DID, which decides the rules of validation depending on the type of claim.

The assignment of a claim is called an Attestation, which we will cover in the next chapter. A claim on its own is quite abstract, but the next chapter will likely clear things up.





Title of the claim, e.g. "Reproducible" or "Published in X"



Description of the attribute it represents and on what grounds it should be granted



Visual representation of the claim



Valid only if granted by claim creator



Valid only if accepted

Badge icon

An image representation of the claim, which should be in square aspect ratio and on a transparent background. Preferably in SVG format, otherwise PNG in 300×300 pixels.

Protected & reciprocal status

The attestation of a protected claim is only valid if created by the same actor who created the claim. In other words, all grants of the claim done by any other actor are invalid.

The attestation of a reciprocal claim is not valid until it has been accepted by the owner of the recipient entity. It can be considered pending until then.

All combinations of these two values are distinctly expressive, as shown below. Do note that these examples are merely illustrative, and could likely be represented in other ways as well.

ProtectedReciprocalMotivating example

A claim like Research funded by NASA should be both protected and reciprocal. Protected because no-one other than NASA should be able to issue it validly. Reciprocal, so the author can consent.

A claim like Published by Science should only be protected. Protected because only Science (the journal) can decide what they publish. Non-reciprocal, because a real-world side effect has taken place either way; the recipient revoking their consent does not make it unpublished.

A claim like Publicly funded research should just be reciprocal. Non-protected because there is no central authority that controls it. Reciprocal, so the author can consent.

A Good Quality community badge should be neither. Non-protected because it's meant to be granted by anyone. Non-reciprocal because there are no negative effects of its reception.

The next chapter includes visual demonstrations of how validation of attestation on the different types of claims is done in practice.

Last updated