search

c2pa-org / specifications

The public specifications for the C2PA
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
92 stars 8 forks source link

Conflicting Schema.org labels #43

Open eeeps opened 7 months ago

eeeps commented 7 months ago

In the Use of Schema.org section, the spec states,

All Schema.org assertions shall have a label that starts with schema.org and be followed by the name of the schema that is being used. For example, schema.org.ImageObject can be used to include something extra about an image.

This somewhat conflicts with this statement in the intro to Labels

Well-established standards can use the "stds." prefix when describing their namespace.

(EXIF and IPTC clearly/consistently use the stds. prefix).

It also conflicts with how the two most important Schema.org assertions – CreativeWork and ClaimReview, are specified and used in examples throughout the spec. Here's the Creative Work section:

A Creative Work assertion shall have a label of stds.schema-org.CreativeWork.

Here's the ClaimReview section:

A ClaimReview assertion shall have a label of stds.schema-org.ClaimReview.

And here's the Standard C2PA Assertion Summary...

Claim Review stds.schema-org.ClaimReview Schema.org ClaimReview JSON-LD
Creative Work stds.schema-org.CreativeWork Schema.org CreativeWork JSON-LD

A find-in-page for "stds.schema-org." returns 21 results, all for labels of stds.schema-org.CreativeWork or stds.schema-org.ClaimReview. A find-in-page for "schema.org." returns five relevant results, all for claim_generator.claim_generator_info[].schema.org.SoftwareApplication.operatingSystem.

Most importantly, existing tooling (Verify and c2patool), which does not yet implement the Common Metadata system introduced in v1.4, only reads from stds.schema-org.CreativeWork assertions, not schema.org.CreativeWork.

Not sure what the best path forward here is, especially given the depreciation of separate EXIF, IPTC, and Schema.org assertion labels in favor of Common Metadata.

lrosenthol commented 7 months ago

@eeeps You are absolutely correct. Most of this is, however, already corrected in the 1.4 version of the specification, and future releases will also improve it even further.

eeeps commented 7 months ago

@lrosenthol The links and text above are all from the current public 1.4 version of the specification.

By "corrected", do you mean that Schema.org labels have been marked as deprecated in 1.4, and so these conflicts are not important to resolve because these labels won't be present in the spec at all, soon? I am inclined to agree, except that current tooling does not yet implement Common Metadata, so implementors (like me) might find themselves consulting these deprecated sections to figure out what to do in the meantime.