IMF-specific content types listed on DCP content type registry without scope clarification

[cfadamp]

I noticed a potential spec/wording issue on the ISDCF content type registry page:

https://registry-page.isdcf.com/contenttypes/

On this page, the list of permissible content types for DCP includes values that are IMF-specific, such as:

• episode
• highlights
• event

These originate from IMF (e.g. ST 2067-3) rather than the DCP specs.

The only clarification note I can see on the page is this:

1. If the scope attribute is absent, the permissible SMPTE 429-7 ContentKind values are as follows: “feature”, “trailer”, “teaser”, “test”, “rating”, “advertisement”, “short”, “transitional”, “psa”, and “policy”. If the scope attribute is present and set to http://www.smpte–ra.org/schemas/429-16/2014/CPL-Metadata#scope/content-kind
   , the permissible SMPTE ST 429-16 ContentKind values are as follows: “clip”, “promo” and “stereocard.” See the specification for details.

This note explicitly covers:

• SMPTE 429-7 ContentKind values, and
• Additional SMPTE ST 429-16 ContentKind values when a specific scope is present.

However, there is no equivalent point (2) explaining under what conditions IMF-specific content types such as episode, highlights, and event are valid – for example, which scope URI is required, and that these are only permissible when that scope is set.

Because of that, the current table can be read as implying that these IMF types are generally valid for DCP CPLs, which (to my understanding) is not correct unless a corresponding IMF-related scope is explicitly in use.

---

Proposal

Would it make sense to:

1. Either remove the IMF-specific content types (episode, highlights, event, etc.) from the DCP content type list,
2. Or add a second clarification point, something like:
   a. Additional IMF ContentKind values (e.g. “episode”, “highlights”, “event”) are permissible only when the appropriate IMF scope is present (e.g. [IMF-related scope URI from ST 2067-3]). See the IMF specification for details.

I’m happy to be corrected if I misunderstood the intended scope model or if there is already a specification reference that I’ve missed.

Thanks a lot for maintaining this registry and for any clarification you can provide!

[palemieux]

I agree that the NOTE is misleading.

It should probably be reworded to state:

The scope attribute of the ContentKind element shall be present and set to the value specified in the ContentKind Scope column, unless the scope of the content kind is equal to ”http://www.smpte-ra.org/schemas/429-7/2006/CPL".

See ST 429-7, 6.8

[palemieux]

@cfadamp See #90

[cfadamp]

Thank you for the prompt reply!