W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > June 2020

Re: Attribution

From: Brendan Quinn <brendan@cluefulmedia.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:52:18 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMvELkdMzczH3V2S63Vf5a7_HGrM7Y+Aof=+qz9mbG3JTV_J3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, "Brendan Quinn (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org>
Hi Thad, and all,

This might tie in well with some work we're kicking off to map IPTC Photo
Metadata fields (the ones embedded in image files) to schema.org. Quite a
few fields relate to attribution and licensing.

Plus we have been working with Google on the Licensable Images feature (
https://iptc.org/news/announcing-googles-licensable-images-developer-release/
 /
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/image-license-metadata)
which uses both schema.org properties and embedded photo metadata fields.

[image: google-images-mockup-closeup-with-labels.png]

Right now the creator, copyright and credit line fields only come from
embedded photo metadata fields, whereas the licence links are in both: the
"license details" link is "licence" in schema.org / "Web Statement of
Rights" in IPTC and "get this image" link is schema.org
"acquireLicensePage" / "Licensor > Licensor URL" in IPTC).

So we've been looking at how to map the creator, copyright notice and
credit line fields to schema.org properties. We would like to eventually
map *all* IPTC fields to schema.org equivalents, we have a draft already
but we need to go through it in detail.

We have noticed that "credit line" and "copyright notice" don't have
immediate equivalents (splitting out "copyright year" and "copyright
holder" is partly, but not quite, equivalent to "copyright notice": for
example, some copyright notices have extra information in them, some
lawyers insist on the copyright symbol and/or the word copyright, some
include "All rights reserved" or "some rights reserved", and some include a
range of years rather than a single year)

So perhaps we do need new schema.org properties to cover credit line and
copyright notice.

Whether all of these fields fit best in a separate Attribution type or as
individual properties is something I don't have a strong opinion on yet. An
initial thought is that the word "attribution" doesn't necessarily cover
licensing information and usage instructions.

(Also I don't think "disclaimer" is the best word for something on a
CreativeWork. A disclaimer of warranty fits better for software or physical
goods, where something can go wrong and the creator is disclaiming
responsibility for fixing the problem. "Usage instructions", "usage
information" or "usage restrictions" probably fits better.)

Best regards,

Brendan (mdirector@iptc.org, but subscribed to this list through my
personal email)


On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 21:42, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Team!
>
> Attribution for Creative Works is often seen as a simple Text string.
> Wikidata.org acknowledges this and so added a new property that holds the
> value of an Attribution.
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P8264
>
> For those not familiar with what an Attribution itself typically looks
> like in the wild...
> It is credit, typically a Text string, given to an author which consists
> of many elements.
> It's often unstructured text or semi-structured text.
>
> For example:
> [image: image.png]
>
> If we break down that text into structured elements, then the Attribution
> text might hold:
>
> 1. A copyright (date typically, but other details as well sometimes)
> 2. A author/creator/copyright holder
> 3. A license
> 4. A disclaimer notice
>
> If we map those elements into Schema.org we have:
>
> 1. https://schema.org/copyrightYear
> 2. https://schema.org/author OR https://schema.org/creator or
> https://schema.org/copyrightHolder
> 3. https://schema.org/license OR https://schema.org/acquireLicensePage
> 4. https://schema.org/usageInfo  (although no mention of disclaimer of
> warranty within its existing definition, this is typically implied with
> usageInfo.  However, 'disclaimer of warranties' could be added to the
> description of usageInfo for better alignment)
>
> We can then see how we also could introduce a new Attribution Type into
> Schema.org vocabulary that could be used on a CreativeWork via a new
> property introduced.  The proposed new property 'attribution' could expect
> a simple Text string, or an Attribution made up of those listed elements.
>
> Further examples of Attribution elements can be seen at
> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Attribution-specific_elements
>
> I'm most interested in seeing a new 'attribution' property expecting Text
> on a CreativeWork.
> But further discussion on a new Attribution Type would also be encouraged
> to fill out our Schema.org hierarchy
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thad
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>

image.png
(image/png attachment: image.png)

google-images-mockup-closeup-with-labels.png
(image/png attachment: google-images-mockup-closeup-with-labels.png)

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2020 07:52:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 2 June 2020 07:52:47 UTC