Describe the inconsistency
There appears to be a structural inconsistency regarding the root semanticId assignment between the Generic Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) Submodel and the Digital Battery Passport (DBP) Carbon Footprint Submodel (IDTA 02035-3).
Both submodels currently use the same root semanticId, despite defining different structures, including different mandatory properties, cardinalities, and battery-specific collections introduced to satisfy Battery Regulation requirements.
Why is this a problem?
Within the AAS ecosystem, the root semanticId is commonly used to identify the semantic definition of a Submodel and, in many implementations, serves as the primary anchor for schema selection and validation.
When two Submodels share the same root semanticId but expose different structures, validators and parsers cannot reliably determine which structure is expected based solely on the semantic identifier. As a result, implementers must introduce custom validation logic or special-case handling, reducing interoperability and increasing implementation complexity.
Expected behavior
Structurally different Submodels should have distinct root semantic identifiers.
If the DBP Carbon Footprint Submodel is intended to extend, specialize, or remain interoperable with the Generic PCF Submodel, this relationship could be expressed through semantic inheritance rather than by reusing the same root identifier.
For example:
-
The DBP Carbon Footprint Submodel should define its own dedicated root semanticId, such as:
https://admin-shell.io/idta/digitalbatterypassport/carbonfootprint/1/0
-
The Generic PCF semanticId could be included in supplementalSemanticIds to indicate semantic compatibility and reuse while preserving a unique structural contract for the DBP-specific model.
Context
This issue was identified while mapping the DBP specification to JSON-based implementations.
Reusing the Generic PCF root semanticId for a structurally different DBP Carbon Footprint Submodel makes it difficult to rely on standard AAS semantic-based validation approaches, since the same identifier may correspond to multiple incompatible structures.
Suggested Action
Could the working group clarify whether the shared root semanticId is intentional?
If the reuse is intentional, could guidance be provided on how parsers and validators are expected to distinguish between the Generic PCF structure and the DBP-specific Carbon Footprint structure while both share the same semantic identifier?
More generally, is the expectation that consumers interpret the root semanticId as identifying only the semantic domain, or should it also be considered a stable indicator of the expected Submodel structure?
Describe the inconsistency
There appears to be a structural inconsistency regarding the root
semanticIdassignment between the Generic Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) Submodel and the Digital Battery Passport (DBP) Carbon Footprint Submodel (IDTA 02035-3).Both submodels currently use the same root
semanticId, despite defining different structures, including different mandatory properties, cardinalities, and battery-specific collections introduced to satisfy Battery Regulation requirements.Why is this a problem?
Within the AAS ecosystem, the root
semanticIdis commonly used to identify the semantic definition of a Submodel and, in many implementations, serves as the primary anchor for schema selection and validation.When two Submodels share the same root
semanticIdbut expose different structures, validators and parsers cannot reliably determine which structure is expected based solely on the semantic identifier. As a result, implementers must introduce custom validation logic or special-case handling, reducing interoperability and increasing implementation complexity.Expected behavior
Structurally different Submodels should have distinct root semantic identifiers.
If the DBP Carbon Footprint Submodel is intended to extend, specialize, or remain interoperable with the Generic PCF Submodel, this relationship could be expressed through semantic inheritance rather than by reusing the same root identifier.
For example:
The DBP Carbon Footprint Submodel should define its own dedicated root
semanticId, such as:The Generic PCF
semanticIdcould be included insupplementalSemanticIdsto indicate semantic compatibility and reuse while preserving a unique structural contract for the DBP-specific model.Context
This issue was identified while mapping the DBP specification to JSON-based implementations.
Reusing the Generic PCF root
semanticIdfor a structurally different DBP Carbon Footprint Submodel makes it difficult to rely on standard AAS semantic-based validation approaches, since the same identifier may correspond to multiple incompatible structures.Suggested Action
Could the working group clarify whether the shared root
semanticIdis intentional?If the reuse is intentional, could guidance be provided on how parsers and validators are expected to distinguish between the Generic PCF structure and the DBP-specific Carbon Footprint structure while both share the same semantic identifier?
More generally, is the expectation that consumers interpret the root
semanticIdas identifying only the semantic domain, or should it also be considered a stable indicator of the expected Submodel structure?