Key to the management of intellectual property in digital media

BISG/NISOThe Changing Standards Landscape Washington DC, June 22 2007

Norman Paskin

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE

T E R T I U S L t d

• “Key to” not “keys to…”

• Naming = assigning an identifier to a referent

• Some general themes and practical consequences

Naming and meaning

The case of the headless corpse

• Identifier: unique persistent alphanumeric string (“number”, “name”, “lexical token”) specifying a referent

– Unique: one to many: an identifier specifies one and only one referent (but a referent may have more than one identifier)

– Persistent: once assigned, does not change referent – May be part of an identifier system (other components, technical or social)

• Resolution: process by which an identifier is input to a network service which returns its associated referent and/or descriptive information about it (metadata). “Actionability”

• Referent: the object which is identified by the identifier, whether or not resolution returns that object.

– may be abstract, physical or digital, since all these forms of entity are of relevance in content management (e.g. creations, resources, agreements, people, organisations)

Naming

• My hat is on the shelf: I can see the hat • My hat is in a box on the shelf: now I can’t see the hat, only boxes• I put a label on the box: now I can still find the hat.

– “The label identifies the hat” • The hat box analogy in digital form: “the data” and “the file server page

it’s on” (the web)• I click on the link, and I get “the thing that I want”…?

– “the URL identifies the content”

• …only in a very simple case.

• It may have moved• It may be in various forms; in multiple places; in different versions; etc. • You may not have rights to it• It may not be possible to “get” it

– e.g if the referent is a person…

What is being named: the (false) hat box analogy

• Granularity: the extent to which a collection of information has been subdivided for purposes of identification (e.g. a collection; a book; tables and figures)– Functional Granularity: it should be possible to identify an

entity whenever it needs to be distinguished

• Your functional granularity may not be my functional granularity: – A wants to distinguish “this book in any format”, but B

wants to distinguish “the pdf version, the html version, etc ….”

Granularity

• Precisely what is being named? • Suppose I have here a pdf version of Defoe’s “Robinson

Crusoe” issued by Norton. I find an identifier – is it of:

– The work “Robinson Crusoe”?– All works by Daniel Defoe? – The Norton edition of “Robinson Crusoe”? – The pdf version of the Norton edition of…. ?– The pdf version of…held on this server…?– Which hat is in that box?

• Most digital objects of interest have compound form, simultaneously embodying several referents

• Multiple identifiers may be necessary (cf music CDs)• Need to say what each identifier describes

Compound objects

• Persistence: “get me the right thing” (redirect to a valid URL)

• Contextual resolution: “get me the thing that is right for me”

– Appropriate copy resolution (e.g. OpenURL context-sensitive linking): same content in different contexts

– Full contextual resolution e.g. rights-based) : different content in different contexts

• A specific case: location-dependent resolution– e.g. Crossref / China

• A general mechanism: multiple resolution: returns multiple things in response to a request from one identifier (e.g. a choice, an automated service)

Resolution

• Assigning metadata to a referent, to enable semantic interoperability – “say what the referent is”

• Semantic: – Do two identifiers denote the same referent? – If A says “owner” and B says “owner”, are they referring to the

same thing? – If A says “released” and B says “disseminated”, do they mean

different things?

• Interoperability: the ability for identifiers to be used in services outside the direct control of the issuing assigner– Identifiers assigned in one context may be encountered, and may

be re-used, in another place or time - without consulting the assigner. You can’t assume that your assumptions made on assignment will be known to someone else.

• Persistence = interoperability with the future

Meaning

Tools to ensure meaning

• Basis: “Interoperability of Data in E-Commerce Systems” (indecs) : http://www.indecs.org 1998-2000

• Led to Contextual Ontology approach - used in:

• ISO MPEG-21 Rights Data Dictionary (http://iso21000-6.net/)

• DOI Data Dictionary (http://www.doi.org )

• DDEX digital data exchange - music industry (http://ddex.net/ )

• ONIX: Book industry (+) messaging schemas (www.editeur.org )

• Rightscom’s OntologyX - licensee of output, plus own work on tools (www.rightscom.com )

• Digital Library Federation - communication of licence terms (ERMI: ONIX for licensing terms)

• May inform development of ACAP - Content Access (http://www.the-acap.org/ )

• Physical property: – representations e.g. deeds, mortgages, are traded (not the physical bricks

etc.) • Intellectual property:

– representations e.g. licences, files, are traded (not the abstract Work etc.)• Representations have value• Not just an inventory but a structured entity, such as a deed

– "to facilitate the comparison and combination of assets (standard descriptions)“

• We are becoming more used to representations: Avatars, licences: in general: digital objects

[See: De Soto: "The Mystery Of Capital"; and Kahn: "Representing Value as Digital Objects" D-Lib magazine, May 01 (www.dlib.org/dlib/may01)]

Representations

• Services using an identifier may be offered by multiple providers– Some may be more definitive than others – “Resolution” shades into “query” – e.g. Worldcat ISBN service

• Each registration authority for an identifier scheme should retain autonomy and precedence in determining rules for usage within its own scheme or community.

• Many early applications will be silos; interoperability is not needed (and may not be desired) – e.g. Knovel: interactivity within its online book content through e book

components

• New applications will reach across silos (mash ups etc); new silos will appear. As such services grow and become many, a single source of data to power multiple services makes sense

Interoperability and multiple services

• An identifier specifies one and only one referent (but a referent may have more than one identifier)– Make systems work together: e.g. Bookland DOIs made from

ISBNs…?• Objects may be abstract, physical or digital, since all these forms of

entity are of relevance in content management (e.g. creations, resources, agreements, people, organisations) – Need for many identifiers: ISTC, ISNI, Licences, etc

• Your functional granularity may not be my functional granularity: A wants to distinguish “this book in any format”, but B wants “the pdf version, the html version….” – Need to enable different identifiers to work together: e.g. ISTC and

ISBN • Assumptions are not sufficient for interoperability

– An identifier is not enough. You need to say what you are identifying.

• Context is vital: “get me the thing that is right for me”– Simple resolution may not be enough.

Practical consequences

• Multiple services may exist for an identifier – Don’t assume only monopoly services– One service may be definitive; some may be better than others

• Digital objects may be representations of something– Need to distinguish what is a representation– Note that representations may be compound objects

• Interoperability becomes more important as an economic feature when there are multiple services or multiple uses – which there will be eventually– Don’t design only for today

• Common frameworks for naming and meaning (to do all this) become important when services cut across silos; across media; from different sources; etc – e.g. DOI

• Multiple resolution: returns multiple results in response to a request (e.g. a choice, an automated service) – need some way of grouping and ordering those results, e.g.

Handle value typing• Interoperability of Data in E-Commerce Systems

– Need semantic precision and common framework

Practical consequences (cont.)

Key to the management of intellectual property in digital media

BISG/NISOThe Changing Standards Landscape Washington DC, June 22 2007

Norman Paskin

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE

T E R T I U S L t d