Registration agencies: DOI deployment doi>

POLICIES Any form of identifier NUMBERING DESCRIPTION framework: DOI can describe any form of intellectual property, at any level of granularity ACTION Handle resolution allows a DOI to link to any and multiple pieces of current data doi>

To do this incurs costs: Number registration –validation, maintenance, metadata, guidance Infrastructure –resolution service, scaling, development Governance –rules, further development DOI adds value

DOI free at point of use Costs of assignment paid by assigner Allow different business models –allow anyone to do what they want Distributed system –agencies DOI deployment; principles

IDF to provide governance layer only –using a federation of registration agencies IDF sets out minimum criteria for registration agencies: –rules of the road: not journey maps –technical; information management; $ Does not prescribe details of individual businesses –user communities set their own agendas Comparable models work well: –EAN/UPC; Visa; ISBN etc. DOI deployment; principles

Variety of potential business models –currently $1000 per prefix one off –one size does not fit all; need more flexibility Variety of naming authority models –currently one per registrant –move to appropriate level; e.g. journals –allow subdivision ( /123) RAs will probably offer applications –number registration alone not a business? DOI deployment: advantages

Site 1Site 2Site 3Site 4Site 5 IDF IP 1 IP 2 IP 3 IP 4 IP 5 IP 6 IP owners RA 0RA 1RA 2RA 3 RA layer Registration Services MD Collection Provision to VAS etc.

DOI operational roles IP owners: register DOIs with agency

DOI operational roles Registration agency: - agreements with IP owners* - registration with DOI system (IDF terms) - metadata collection /added value* - provision of, or to, Value Added Services by agreement*, etc * specific to each RA

DOI operational roles IDF: minimal common agreements - DOI resolution service - service integrity - Data Type Registries - Policies e.g. archiving, testing, etc

Registration agencies run the system Operating Federation (all the RAs) RA IP Operating costs Costs/N $ $$

DOI deployment: organisation Operating Federation RA IP IDF M & cost-reductiondevelopment spend

DOI deployment: organisation IDF M RA c

Appoint RA membership to elected board –4/14 seats (29%) possible target: % seats = % income? future evolution of the organisation Registration agencies and IDF representation

DOI deployment: initial organisation IDF M RA 71%29% IP

Common agreement –level playing field –recognise differences in scale Franchise model Initial financial model (2001) –2 cents per DOI allocated –membership of IDF –minimum $20K Initial working group –Terms –Letter of Intent –All RAs and more members Terms between Registration agencies and IDF

Functional (application) agencies –applications across borders (e.g. CrossRef) National/regional DOI agencies –local services –language documentation –integration with other agencies e.g. ISBN ? –Enpia (Korea); MEDRA (EC) Issues (1): Functional v national

DOI metadata is a small basic set –likely not to be of commercial value alone Resolution provides known item –DOI look up only Metadata is not held in DOI system –only a pointer to it Metadata promotion maximises value –like a catalogue Issues (2): Value of metadata

On a web page; tag; etc –easy to do, unstructured XML (Extensible Markup Language) –logical syntax, wide support, needs more to guarantee interoperability RDF (Resource Description Framework) –Syntax for interoperable semantics; standard still evolving. Questions as to acceptability Separate database –easy but raises issues of access Pointer entry (data type) in DOI record –best guarantee of commonality; to be introduced; DOI-AP Issues (3): Make metadata available (syntax)

DOI approach based on work –practical implementation ONIX etc DOI application profile for each i.p. type –functionally (arbitrarily) defined Incorporates a common DOI kernel: –DOI; DOI genre; Identifier (legacy); Title –Type (work, manifestation, etc) –Origination (original, derivative, replica, etc) –Primary agent and agent role Defined by the community –DOI user community (for an application area) Further articulation and guidelines Issues (4): Which metadata? (semantics)

DOI App Prof 1 Compulsory metadata for this App. DOI App Profile 2 DOI App Prof 3 Compulsory kernel metadata for any DOI All metadata in well-formed structure

Seen already: –duplication of prefix; DOIs not entered into directory; citing of early DOIs Who will determine rules? –May be different guidelines for different areas and who will police them? Some checks can be built into system – e.g. attempted duplication Issues (5): Mis-use

missionary work –identifiers: precision about what is identified (ISO TC46?) –functional granularity; well-formed metadata, etc. who will pay for this? what can we learn from other efforts? –e.g. ISBN Best explained by examples: applications Encouraging signs of take off –e.g. CrossRef, TSO, CAL, libraries, etc Issues (6): Explaining

DOI only now going from zero to compulsory application metadata sets –pioneering difficulties Resolution technology not ubiquitous –plug-ins and proxies are work arounds Who owns compliance? Guidelines are incomplete/evolving Issues (7): Building on incomplete foundations

Who defines kernel, and mappings, ensures conformance? –e.g. DOI-X, Crossref (journal articles) –IDF testing service at cost? Rules for user communities? Who ensures quality control of content? Who is the authority for each element? What are the business model implications? Issues (8): quality control

DOI Registration Agencies –based on similar models –e.g. UPC/EAN bar codes, ISBN Relationships between: –agencies and IDF –agencies and customers –agencies and agencies –agencies and user communities Issues (9): Business models

IDF / Operating Federation RA C CC

Many ISO entities have metadata records –ISBN, ISSN, etc - widely used May not be consistent with each other May not be consistent with indecs mapping May not be available for DOI registration on ideal do it once basis –commercial considerations of those agencies Can metadata be shared? Issues (10): relation to existing schemes?

DOI and indecs based on open standards Who directs evolution? –governance structure, maintenance agency (NISO standard) –likely not to be of commercial value alone Who will invest the resources necessary to make improvements and prevent stagnation? –IDF set up as collaborative forum –Long term funding and sustainability? –Funding through use (like bar codes) Issues (11): management of standards

User communities want to control their own activities as far as possible –Principle of Subsidiarity –constitutional rules? There must be some common rules –Principle of Interoperability –operations and standards council? Issues (12): governance

Basis for Deployment outlined (end of 1999) –cost recovery RA Working Group: initially 3 members/RAs –Terms document –Letter of Intent –Full RA agreement and licences CrossRef first RA to sign up RAs crucial part of the Foundation –governance and close collaboration Registration Agencies

does not own or direct –RAs are independent businesses, members of the Foundation, part of agreed operating federation does not compete with existing agencies –(e.g. ISBN): we mandate declaration of ISBN etc. does not determine business models –needs to be done by the sector does not enforce one single metadata standard –just principles neither privatises nor liberates data –only a minimal kernel (like book title) provides community focus and consensus IDF in relation to Registration Agencies

Marketing –selling what we have; PR; workshops; membership support and recruitment Operations –what needs to be better documented, scaled etc. for immediate roll out Business development –extending scope and determining requirements R&D –what is needed for the long term Plans - priorities