Key to the management of intellectual property in digital media BISG/NISO The Changing Standards Landscape Washington DC, June 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) : Led to Contextual Ontology approach - used in: ISO MPEG-21 Rights Data Dictionary ( DOI Data Dictionary ( ) DDEX digital data exchange - music industry ( ) ONIX: Book industry (+) messaging schemas ( ) Rightscom’s OntologyX - licensee of output, plus own work on tools ( ) Digital Library Federation - communication of licence terms (ERMI: ONIX for licensing terms) May inform development of ACAP - Content Access ( 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 ( 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/NISO The Changing Standards Landscape Washington DC, June Norman Paskin IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE T E R T I U S L t d