Introduce an optional signer_payload.role field
#98
Conversation
This allows credential subject’s relationship to the C2PA asset to be declared. Closes #26.
|
FYI I did review the numerous links posted in #26 and also the Creative Work schema from schema.org. In my opinion, we are better served by keeping this as simple as possible which is why this PR is influenced by some of the roles described in those specifications, but is not a wholesale adoption of any of them. |
docs/modules/ROOT/pages/index.adoc
Outdated
| | `cawg.translator` | The _<<_credential_subject,credential subject>>_ has adapted of this _<<C2PA asset>>_ from a similar work in another language. | ||
| |======================= | ||
|
|
||
| Other values for `role` MAY be used with the understanding that they may not be well understood by *<<_identity_assertion,identity assertion>>* consumers. Values for `role` that begin with the prefix `cawg.` are reserved for the use of the Creator Assertions Working Group and MUST NOT be used unless defined in a this or a future version of this specification. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should you point at the relevant section of C2PA for namespacing rules. so that all other roles are namespaced??
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lrosenthol can you point me to that section? IIRC when we discussed a few weeks ago, that wasn't yet formalized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lrosenthol the closest section in C2PA that I could find is §6.2 Labels, which appears to be specific to assertion labels and thus not usable here. Is there another section I'm missing?
docs/modules/ROOT/pages/index.adoc
Outdated
|
|
||
| The _<<_credential_holder,credential holder>>_ MAY choose to describe the relationship of the _<<_credential_subject,credential subject>>_ to the _<<C2PA asset>>_ by adding a `role` field to `signer_payload`. | ||
|
|
||
| The following values for `role` are defined. It is recommended that the value of `role` be one of the following values and that any user experience that presents the content of an *<<_identity_assertion,identity assertion>>* be prepared to describe these roles in the same human language as the surrounding interface: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider moving this into its own standard?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Per @chalford comment, is there a JSON-LD vocabulary for this kind of role that could be defined?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Per Nigel comment, do we need to allow multiple roles per named actor?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Above feedback was from last Monday (29 April)'s meeting. I'm planning to push back on that in the interest of keeping this specification simpler. I think we could add a JSON-LD vocabulary here in a subsequent release if there's significant pushback.
# Conflicts: # docs/modules/ROOT/pages/index.adoc # docs/modules/ROOT/partials/version-history.adoc
…ngle credential subject
# Conflicts: # docs/modules/ROOT/pages/index.adoc # docs/modules/ROOT/partials/version-history.adoc
# Conflicts: # docs/modules/ROOT/pages/index.adoc # docs/modules/ROOT/partials/version-history.adoc (Also, apply credential subject -> named actor change to this PR.)
This allows credential subject’s relationship to the C2PA asset to be declared.
Closes #26.