please explan the defference between validation and verification.
and provide examples in terms of the accounting data tandards.

the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines following.

verification
​the act of showing or checking that something is true or accurate

validation
​[uncountable, countable] the act of proving that something is true or correct
There must be some form of external validation of the data.
​[uncountable, countable] the act of making something legally recognized
validation of web service contracts

In the context of software engineering, including accounting data standards, validation and verification are distinct yet interrelated concepts. Both of these are essential for ensuring the accuracy and quality of a system.

Verification: This is the process of checking that a product, system, or component meets specified requirements. It’s like asking, “Are we building the system right?” Essentially, verification involves reviewing design documents, performing inspections, conducting walkthroughs, and other similar processes to ensure that the system has been designed correctly.

Example: In terms of accounting data standards, verification might involve inspecting the code to ensure that it correctly implements a rule for calculating total assets or checking that the database structure correctly follows the design to accurately store financial transactions.

Validation: This is the process of evaluating a system or component during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it satisfies the user needs. It’s like asking, “Are we building the right system?” In other words, validation is about ensuring that the system will meet users’ needs and requirements in the real world.

Example: For accounting data standards, validation might involve running the system with test data to ensure that it correctly calculates financial metrics, or having end users test the system to confirm that it meets their needs and expectations, such as being able to generate the desired financial reports.

While both validation and verification are necessary, they serve different purposes. Verification is about conforming to specifications, while validation is about meeting user needs. Verification usually takes place earlier in the development process, while validation often comes later, when a complete system can be tested.

is xml schema check either verification or validation?

Checking an XML Schema is typically considered a form of verification.

In the context of XML, a schema defines the structure and the type of data that an XML document can contain. Thus, when you check or validate an XML document against its schema, you’re verifying whether the document adheres to the defined structure and data types specified by the schema.

That said, the term “validation” is often used in this context (XML Schema validation), but it’s important to note that it’s essentially a verification activity, as it checks conformance to predefined specifications (the schema), rather than ensuring that the document meets user needs or requirements. The use of “validation” here is part of the terminology of XML and doesn’t quite match the general software engineering definition of validation.

To give an example: If you have an XML document that contains financial data, verifying (or “validating” in XML terminology) this document against its XML Schema would ensure that all necessary data fields are present, that the values in these fields are of the correct type (e.g., that date fields contain dates, that number fields contain numbers), and that the overall structure of the document matches what’s defined in the schema.

is schematron checking against the content value validation?

Yes, Schematron validation can be considered as a form of validation in the broader sense of software quality assurance.

Schematron is a rule-based validation language for making assertions about the presence or absence of patterns in XML documents. Unlike XML Schema, which verifies the structure and data types in an XML document, Schematron can be used to validate that the data in an XML document meets certain conditions or rules.

For instance, in an accounting XML document, you might use Schematron to validate that the value of an “end_balance” element is equal to the value of the “start_balance” plus the sum of the “transaction” elements. This kind of content-based rule can’t be checked by XML Schema alone, which is where Schematron comes in.

So, in a sense, Schematron helps in “validation” of data in the context of the system’s requirements or business rules, ensuring the data content in the XML documents is accurate and meaningful according to the user or business needs. This aligns well with the general definition of validation in software engineering as it’s ensuring we are building the right system according to user needs and requirements.

Is checking whether account number and amount is reported in a general ledger a varification and checking debt amount and credit ammount is the same is validation?

You’re on the right track in your understanding. Let’s break down these two examples:

Checking whether the account number and amount are reported in a general ledger: This could be considered verification. In this case, you’re checking whether the system is functioning correctly according to its design and specifications. The system is supposed to record the account number and amount for each transaction in the general ledger. So, if it’s doing that correctly, it’s meeting its design specifications.

Checking whether the debit amount and credit amount balance: This would be more along the lines of validation. Here, you’re checking whether the system is meeting a fundamental business requirement that’s critical for the users (in this case, accountants). In accounting, the principle of double-entry bookkeeping states that for every debit entry, there must be an equivalent credit entry, so that the books are always balanced. Therefore, if the system is maintaining this balance correctly, it’s meeting its user requirements and business rules.

Remember that these distinctions can sometimes get blurred in practice. The main thing is that both verification (checking against specifications) and validation (checking against user needs) are necessary for ensuring the quality of a system.

ISO/IEC 17029:2019(en)
Conformity assessment — General principles and requirements for validation and verification bodies

Validation and verification as conformity assessment are understood to be a confirmation of reliability of information declared in claims. Other terms in use for the object of assessment by validation and verification are “statement”, “declaration”, “assertion”, “prediction” or “report”.
Both activities are distinguished according to the timeline of the assessed claim. Validation is applied to claims regarding an intended future use or projected outcome (confirmation of plausibility), while verification is applied to claims regarding events that have already occurred or results that have already been obtained (confirmation of truthfulness).
Since the requirements in this document are generic in nature, a programme for the particular validation/verification needs to be operated. Such a programme further specifies definitions, principles, rules, processes and requirements for validation/verification process steps, as well as for the competence of validators/verifiers for a specific sector. Programmes can be legal frameworks, international, regional or national standards, global initiatives, sector applications as well as individual agreements with clients of the validation/verification body.

3.2
validation
confirmation of a claim (3.1), through the provision of objective evidence, that the requirements for a specific intended future use or application have been fulfilled
Note 1 to entry: Objective evidence can come from real or simulated sources.
Note 2 to entry: Validation is considered to be a process to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions, limitations, and methods that support a claim about the outcome of future activities.
Note 3 to entry: Validation is applied to claims regarding an intended future use based on projected information (confirmation of plausibility).
Note 4 to entry: Figure C.1 illustrates the application of validation.
SOURCE:ISO 9000:2015, 3.8.13, modified — The words “of a claim” and “future” have been added to the definition and the Notes to entry have been modified.

3.3
verification
confirmation of a claim (3.1), through the provision of objective evidence, that specified requirements have been fulfilled
Note 1 to entry: Verification is considered to be a process for evaluating a claim based on historical data and information to determine whether the claim is materially correct and conforms with specified requirements.
Note 2 to entry: Verification is applied to claims regarding events that have already occurred or results that have already been obtained (confirmation of truthfulness).
Note 3 to entry: Figure C.2 illustrates the application of verification.
SOURCE:ISO 9000:2015, 3.8.12, modified — The words “of a claim” have been added to the definition and the Notes to entry have been modified.

The ISO/IEC 17029:2019 standards you’ve quoted provide a slightly different perspective on validation and verification, particularly focusing on their temporal aspects. This standard is used in the context of conformity assessment, referring to the process of determining whether a product, service, system, person, or body meets specified requirements, often related to standards or regulations.

According to this standard:

Validation is related to future events. It’s the process of confirming that a system will meet the requirements for a specific intended future use or application. This process involves evaluating the assumptions, limitations, and methods that support a claim about the outcome of future activities. In other words, validation here is concerned with the plausibility of what is expected to happen in the future.

Verification, on the other hand, is related to past events. It’s the process of confirming that specified requirements have indeed been fulfilled. Verification involves evaluating a claim based on historical data and information to determine whether the claim is correct and conforms to specified requirements. In other words, verification here is concerned with the truthfulness of what has already happened or been achieved.

In the context of accounting data, for example:

A validation activity might involve confirming that a newly designed financial forecasting model will correctly predict future financial results based on its underlying assumptions and methods.

A verification activity might involve confirming that a financial report correctly presents the financial transactions that have occurred during a given period, according to the applicable financial reporting standards.

This interpretation of validation and verification still aligns well with the general idea of “building the right system” (validation) and “building the system right” (verification), but with an added emphasis on the temporal aspect: validation is about future uses and outcomes, while verification is about past events and results.

ISO 20414:2020(en)
Fire safety engineering — Verification and validation protocol for building fire evacuation models

3.36
validation
process of determining the degree to which a calculation method is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the calculation method
SOURCE:ISO 13943:2017, 3.416 — modified

3.37
verification
process of determining that a calculation method implementation accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description of the calculation method and the solution to the calculation method
Note 1 to entry: The fundamental strategy of verification of computational models is the identification and quantification of error (3.19) in the modelling approach and its implementation.
SOURCE:ISO 13943:2017, 3.419 — modified

The ISO 20414:2020 standard you’ve referenced relates to fire safety engineering, particularly focusing on verification and validation protocols for building fire evacuation models. The definitions provided in this standard still align with the general principles of validation and verification, but they are more specific to the context of computational models used in fire safety engineering.

According to this standard:

Validation is about determining how well a calculation method (or model) accurately represents the real world, given its intended uses. Essentially, it is assessing whether the model provides an accurate and reliable representation of what would happen in real-world scenarios. In other words, it’s about ensuring that the model is correct and useful from the perspective of its intended users.

Verification, on the other hand, is about determining whether the implementation of a calculation method accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description of the method and the solution to the method. This is about checking that the model has been correctly implemented according to its design. It involves identifying and quantifying any errors in the model or its implementation.

To provide an example related to the standard:

A validation activity might involve comparing the predictions of a fire evacuation model with real-world observations or experimental data to see how well the model’s predictions match reality.

A verification activity might involve checking the model’s code to ensure it correctly implements the equations and algorithms that the model is supposed to use, and testing the model with known inputs to see whether it produces the correct outputs.

So, in this context, validation is about the model’s accuracy in representing the real world, while verification is about the model’s correctness in terms of its design and implementation.

ISO 15746-3:2020(en)
Automation systems and integration — Integration of advanced process control and optimization capabilities for manufacturing systems — Part 3: Verification and validation

3.5
validation
process of evaluating an APC-O system to determine whether it satisfies the stakeholders’ requirements for that system

3.6
verification
process of evaluating an APC-O system to determine whether the output of a phase satisfies the conditions imposed at the start of that phase

The ISO 15746-3:2020 standard you’ve quoted pertains to automation systems and integration, specifically focusing on the integration of Advanced Process Control and Optimization (APC-O) capabilities for manufacturing systems. The definitions of validation and verification in this standard adhere closely to the general principles of these terms in software engineering and quality assurance, but tailored specifically for the context of APC-O systems.

According to this standard:

Validation is the process of evaluating an APC-O system to determine whether it satisfies the stakeholders’ requirements for that system. This is about ensuring that the system meets the needs and expectations of its users and other stakeholders. Essentially, validation here is concerned with the question: “Are we building the right system?”

Verification, on the other hand, is the process of evaluating an APC-O system to determine whether the output of a phase satisfies the conditions imposed at the start of that phase. This is about checking that the system has been correctly built or implemented according to its design specifications. In essence, verification here is concerned with the question: “Are we building the system right?”

For instance, in an APC-O system:

A validation activity might involve having the system’s users or stakeholders test the system to confirm that it meets their requirements, such as being able to control and optimize the manufacturing process in the ways they need.

A verification activity might involve checking that the system correctly implements the control algorithms and optimization routines that it’s supposed to, and that the system’s output at each phase of its operation matches the expected output for that phase.

what is the best definition of validation and verification for the test process against audit data collected?

When working with audit data, validation and verification can be seen as two important processes to ensure the reliability, accuracy, and relevance of the data. Here’s a definition for each term in this context:

Validation: This is the process of evaluating the collected audit data to determine whether it meets the defined requirements for its intended use. For instance, if you’re auditing a financial system, validation might involve checking whether the collected data includes all necessary financial transactions, whether the data supports the conclusions you wish to draw, and whether the data is relevant and appropriate for the audit’s objectives.

Verification: This is the process of confirming that the collected audit data is accurate, complete, and has been processed correctly. This might involve, for example, checking that the data collection tools or methods have worked correctly, that all necessary data has been collected, that the data matches the original source documents, and that any processing or transformation of the data (such as calculations or data cleaning) has been done correctly.

It’s important to remember that these are general definitions and the specific activities involved in validation and verification can vary depending on the nature of the audit, the data, and the systems being audited.