doi> DOI and MPEG RDD Standard IDF Strategy meeting Bologna 2005

DOI and MPEG RDD standard MPEG Rights Data Dictionary standard, ISO/IEC IDF initiated consortium (CONTECS) which developed indecs concepts further (IDF, MMG, MPAS, RIAA, RightsCom) Accepted by ISO/IEC MPEG Standard published last year – see Press Release 3 June 2004 IDF recommended as Registration Authority Rightscom as technical subcontractor At last years meeting we noted that formal confirmation by ISO was expected. This is a major step forward! Has opened up connections with REL (Rights Expression language), Digital Item ID, and hence potentially much wider non-text world doi>

Press Release (CONTECS June 2004) The Contecs:DD Consortium ( comprising the International DOI Foundation, Melodies and Memories Global Ltd, the Motion Picture Association, the Recording Industry Association of America and Rightscom Ltd ), the International Publishers Association, the Association of American Publishers, The International Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, the and the Publishers Association (UK) and EDItEUR welcome the publication by ISO of the MPEG Rights Data Dictionary standard, ISO/IEC The ISO MPEG Rights Data Dictionary (RDD) provides the basis for a resource to create widely understood, consistent meaning for Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems. The RDD will be available to all those involved in building and deploying DRM systems to ensure that the terms used in permissions granted by the systems can be interpreted consistently. The RDD specification is intended to support the ISO MPEG Rights Expression Language. Together, the two standards equip the DRM world with interoperable ways of expressing rules and interoperable ways of communicating the meaning of these rules. This is to the benefit of rights holders, who can be confident that business rules can be interpreted consistently and to consumers, who can be sure that usage permissions will not vary unpredictably across different systems. Manufacturers can also benefit because their systems can interoperate without detailed negotiation on the interpretation of permissions.

Press Release (CONTECS June 2004) To support the new standard, MPEG is recommending the appointment of the International DOI Foundation (IDF) and its technical partner, Rightscom, as the Registration Agency for the RDD. The Registration Authority will enable DRM builders, device manufacturers and other parties to register their terms in a database, which will be available for automated queries to determine the precise meaning of terms in permissions. Chris Barlas, who edited the RDD standard said: "The MPEG Rights Data Dictionary is a unique addition to the DRM environment. By providing a set of standard meanings to enable different communities to exchange precise information, the system cuts down on possible misinterpretation. It is a big boost for DRM interoperability." Norman Paskin, Director of IDF said: "Rights are complex and many metadata schemes are already in use; the deployment of an interoperable and standard dictionary provides a solution to cope with this real-world diversity. The MPEG RDD is a realisation of the concept of semantic interoperability we have campaigned for, and we are delighted to see it now made available ".

DOI and metadata standards RDD is part of the overall indecs Data Dictionary approach –All the RDD terms are in the actual iDD as it now stands That is is not the DOI Metadata Standard scheme you must use. DOI can use ANY metadata; the Dictionary simply enables interoperability. Using ONIX is best example so far CRM, FRBR are similar philosophy so map very well SCORM, DC, METS, etc can also be mapped The existence of the dictionary can help develop a scheme by offering standard terms doi>

OntologyX RightsCom (Mi3p etc) indecsDD IDF + ONIX Development of indecs Black = what Red = who indecs (2000) indecs Framework Ltd IFPI/RIAA, MPA, IDF, DentsuMMG, Rightscom CONTECS (2001+) 2004 ISO MPEG21 RDD IDF : Defining what is identified through metadata

Next steps in formal appointment of IDF Submitted by MPEG to ITTF June –Sept 2004 From ITTF to Technical Management Board –No response received by end ot year 2004 –Reminders Jan/Feb 2005 March 05: received question re clarification re fees –Generally, if RA operates with a fee structure, the structure shall be for the purpose of cost recovery. –Requested that "IDF agrees to operate with a fee structure for the purpose of recovering the RA administration, in accordance with the JTC 1, and approved by the ISO and IEC councils. End April: RA contract for signature by IDF approved at SC 29 Plenary meeting –sent to MPEG and then to IDF. –Regarding the fee structure, we can request the ISO/IEC Council for approval of fee requirement for cost recovery, whenever your request document is ready. –Compared example of CISAC (DII RA) (in the case of CISAC, the letter was sent to ISO/IEC when CISAC finalised amended its fee structure.) doi>

Role of IDF in RDD and business model Currently: have not signed contract pending development of business model –No urgency from MPEG but we should decide way forward in latter half of 2005 –Rightscom key to this –Strongly related to work on iDD, ERMI, etc –Also depends on IDF progress and other issues Contecs:DD Consortium has licensing procedures for the underlying RDD technology. Annex C of the ISO/IEC standard contains the requirements for the RDD Registration Authority: includes: C.3.1Establishment The Registration Authority shall establish registration and identification procedure for RDD Terms and TermSets in accordance with JTC1 Directives…. Clause C6 specifically refers to fees: (a) JTC1 approval must be obtained and (b) fees may only b on a cost-recovery basis. C.6Fees Subject to approval by JTC1, the Registration Authority may charge fees for the registration of Terms and TermSets on a cost-recovery basis only. The nominated organization should describe the nature of any anticipated fees or other service charges directly related to the process of RDD Term registration. doi>

What is a data dictionary? A set of terms, with their definitions, used in a computerized system Some data dictionaries are structured, with terms related to other terms through hierarchies and other relationships: derived from an ontology: –An explicit formal specification of how to represent the objects, concepts and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold among them - i.e. not just free text An interoperable data dictionary contains terms from multiple computerized systems or metadata schemes, and shows the relationships they have with one another in a formal way. The purpose of an interoperable data dictionary is to support the use together of terms from different systems. doi>

Metadata scheme e.g. ONIX Metadata scheme e.g. SCORM Agreed term-by- term mapping or Crosswalk

Metadata scheme e.g. ONIX Metadata scheme e.g. SCORM

Data Dictionary Metadata scheme e.g. ONIX Metadata scheme e.g. SCORM ONIX:Author = NormanRights:Writer Metadata Scheme NormanRights Term Author Term Writer

Metadata interoperability: semantic problems But such mappings are not simple: Different names (and languages) for the same thing (Author vs Writer) Same name for different things (title, Title) Data elements at different levels of speciality (title vs FullTitle, AlternativeTitle). Different allowed values for elements (pii vs not pii) Data at different levels of granularity (journal_article vs SerialArticleWork/SerialArticleVersion). Data in different structures (article as attribute of journal or vice versa). Data from different sources (local codes vs ONIX codes). Different contextual meaning (DOI of what…?) Different representation (1 title vs n titles). Different mandatory requirements (ISSN mandatory vs optional) Schemas are being updated all the time..... etc. To manage all of this requires a coherent structured approach.

The dictionary model The methodology is the one –developed in more detail by CONTECS and by Rightscom –MPEG21 RDD was the first result of the extended methodology It uses the context model to express an events-based structure –the accepted ontology approach [context based= events and states] We often think of metadata as about things, people, etc – static views e.g. about person A or creation B We link things (e.g. to describe rights activities) by describing events relating things and people – dynamic views e.g. A created B Events description is the key to rights metadata –all rights transactions are contextual (events) –describing the event in context, using formal dictionary terms, enables interoperability See Last years Annual IDF meeting technical workshop – slides on our web site

doi> DOI and MPEG RDD Standard IDF Strategy meeting Bologna 2005