Restructure spec to describe basic concepts and verification

[msporny]

Per my action item from last week's call, I've restructured the spec to contain "basic concepts", "advanced concepts" and "verification" sections. Laying the specification out in this way enables us to neatly answer a number of the questions that @ChristopherA raised in #59.

This restructuring has also led to the ability to simplify the core data model section, which will be done in a separate PR. For the time being, ignore the Core Data Model section, and focus on the "Basic Concepts", "Advanced Concepts", and "Verification" sections in the spec. Don't worry about typos/prose for now, this PR is just to test out the new layout for the spec to see if it resonates with the group.

You can preview this PR here:

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/msporny-verification/index.html

/cc @ChristopherA @kimdhamilton

[dlongley]

Manu and I discussed this before he reworked it, so +1 to this approach or something very similar.

The basic idea is to introduce the core data model parts first (essentially prerequisites for understanding anything at all). Then introduce individual elements of the data model that are related to different aspects of using verifiable claims (where each action/usage is a subsection). In each of these subsections we should mention at the end of the section that the data model terms introduced therein are related to verification in such and such ways with a link off to the verification section. Then, the verification section goes through, comprehensively, all of the various things that can be verified.

[ChristopherA]

+1

I like the direction this is going. I may quibble with some words and other minor items, like what to do in situations with multiple signature and/or timestamps, and there may be some revocation family of ideas that may have to be rethought, but these changes will move us in the direction of being able to address those issues.

[stonematt]

i like this direction also - thanks manu.

[burnburn]

Yes, this is a definite improvement.

[kimdhamilton]

LGTM

I prefer this approach because of the conceptual clarity it enables for all technical audiences. As an implementer, I personally don't anticipate being negatively impacted.

[msporny]

Thanks all, seeing no objections, merging now.