Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The analysis Godfrey Rust, Data Definitions, London W3C DRM workshop, January 2001 January 2001.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The analysis Godfrey Rust, Data Definitions, London W3C DRM workshop, January 2001 January 2001."— Presentation transcript:

1 the analysis Godfrey Rust, Data Definitions, London W3C DRM workshop, January 2001 January 2001

2 the analysis project framework EDItEUR book industry IFPI record industry CISAC societies copyright owners IFRRO societiescopyright owners DOI Foundationidentification, resolution of content Muze Inc largest Web content data provider January 2001

3 the analysis Output “Principles, model and data dictionary, June 2000” Scope DRM as a metadata problem. Current applications – description, not DRM yet EDItEUR/ONIXONIX metadata standard (books, eBooks, video? audio?) DOI FoundationMetadata framework for DOI apps Muze Inc Basis of new multimedia products January 2001

4 People make Stuff is used by Deals about do Scope January 2001

5 Parties Creations Agreements Key entities January 2001 Need to identify and describe these three things in controlled ways

6 1. Intellectual property is complex 2. Metadata is critical 3. Metadata is modular 4. Metadata is interdependent 5. Transactions need automation Axioms (things we can’t avoid) January 2001

7 B B C C IsIdentifierOf IsCreatorOf IsAgreementAbout E E F F G G IsDateOf IsPartyTo D D Granularity, modularity IsIdentifierOf IsCreatorOf IsAgreementAbout IsContentOf H H I I J J K K A A January 2001

8 B B C C IsIdentifierOf IsCreatorOf IsAgreementAbout E E F F G G IsDateOf IsPartyTo D D Interoperability=automated recognition IsIdentifierOf IsCreatorOf IsAgreementAbout IsContentOf H H I I J J K K A A January 2001

9 1. Functional granularity (when is a thing a thing?). DRM standards to support any level of granularity. 2. Unique identification (what is it?) 3. Designated authority (who says its true?) 4. Appropriate access (what do I need you to know?) Balance of access, security and privacy. Principles (guidelines to follow) January 2001

10 The metadata landscape for “creations”

11 Books Audio Audiovisual Libraries Copyright Journals Magazines Newspapers Standards Education Music Texts Technology Archives Museums

12 The metadata landscape for “creations” Books Audio Audiovisual Libraries Copyright Journals Magazines Newspapers Standards Education MARC CAE ISBN ISSN Music Texts EAN Technology Archives Museums UPC ISO codes 1980s

13 The metadata landscape for “creations” Books Audio Audiovisual Multimedia Libraries Copyright Journals Magazines Newspapers Standards Education MARC ISRC CAE ISBN ISSN ISAN Music ISMN CIS Texts Dublin Core EAN Technology DOI IIM Archives Museums ISWC FRBR UPC url urn Handle ISO codes mid 90’s IMS

14 The metadata landscape for “creations” Books Audio Audiovisual Multimedia Libraries Copyright Journals Magazines Newspapers Standards Education MARC ISRC CAE ISBN ISSN ISAN Music ISMN CIS UMID TextsISTC Dublin Core SMPTE RIAA/IFPI EPICS ONIX EAN IMS LOM abc MPEG7 MPEG21 ISO11179 RDF Technology XML schema DOI IPDA PRISM eBooks EBooks IIM NITF Archives Museums CIDOC CROSSREF ISWC P/META XrML FRBR UPC urluri urn Handle BICI SICIISO codes today

15 Convergence All serious schemes are becoming... Granular (parts and versions) Modular (creations within creations) Multimedia Multinational Multilingual Multipurpose EPICS/ONIX (“books”) SMPTE (audiovisual) RIAA/IFPI (audio/music) OEBF (eBooks) MPEG7 DOI genres CIDOC (museums/archives) MARC/FRBR (libraries) Dublin Core CIS (copyright societies) NITF (newspapers) PRISM (magazines) Result: major “sector” schemes are now trying to define metadata with broadly the same scope, only different emphases.

16 1. All metadata is just a view 2. (Almost) all terms need unique identification 3. Events are the key to interoperability Three indecs conclusions January 2001

17 #1: All metadata is just a view eg an identifier for a “journal article” may refer to... A manuscript The abstract work A draft A (class of) physical copy in a publication A (class of) digital copy (not in a publication) A (class of) digital copy in a publication A (class of) digital format A specific digital copy A (class of) paper copy A specific paper copy An edition A reprint A translation etc…and many combinations of the above Similar views apply to other types of creation. Three conclusions January 2001

18 #1: All metadata is just a view Views must not be confused: mistaken identity can be disastrous for rights management Increasingly, views need to be interoperable within organizations (eg production workflow, rights, marketing) and – in future – in Web transactions. The need for automated, interoperable views in d- commerce will become enormous. Three conclusions January 2001

19 #2: (Almost) all terms need identifiers Values must be defined and identified (what do you mean by an abstract work? an edition? a format? a scholar? a book? a name?) So views need comprehensive standardized vocabularies. Automation needs disambiguity. Terms of rights must be unambiguous. Anything may be a term of an agreement. Emergence of the value of structured ontologies and directories for commerce. Three conclusions January 2001

20 Standardised vocabularies Existing… Territories, Language, Currency, Date/Time (ISO) Measures (U.C.U.M) Needed… Creation types (manifestation, expression, abstraction…) Derivation types (adaptation, sample, compilation…) Contributor roles (author, translator, cameraman…) User roles (distributor, copier, viewer, translator…) Title types (abbreviated, inverted, formal...) Name types Identifier types Media types (formats) Media property types (encoding, features) Tools/instruments etc...and many identifiers not yet established or devised (Parties, Agreements, ISWC, ISTC, ISAN, UMID etc) January 2001

21 #3: Events are the key to interoperability Most metadata is “stuff” or “people” based. Web metadata interoperability may best be achieved by describing “events”. This interoperability may not be established at source but by intermediation (data transformations). Event descriptions are also the key to rights metadata. Three conclusions January 2001

22 This ppt Subject Creator Time Place DRM Resource description G Rust Ealing Creating January 2001

23 Creating agent output input context This ppt DRM G Rust Ealing Event description January 2001

24 Creating agent output input context E1 This ppt DRM Ealing G Rust Creating event January 2001

25 N Paskin Showing agent context E2 Using event New York January 2001 This ppt input

26 Showing agent context E2E N Paskin Using event New York January 2001 This ppt input output

27 XYZ N Paskin Showing This ppt agent context E2 Complex event January 2001 E1 output

28 N Paskin Showing This ppt agent E context ??? Complex event XYZ New York E3 January 2001 E1 output

29 N Paskin This ppt agent E2 Adapting E4 His ppt Next week Oxford output context E3 Transforming event January 2001 E1 output

30 The bar Last night G Rust Agreeing agent context E5 N Paskin agent Agreement January 2001

31 output Showing Adapting The bar Last night G Rust Agreeing agent context E5 N Paskin agent E4E2 Agreement January 2001

32 permission Showing Adapting The bar Last night G Rust Agreeing agent context E5 N Paskin agent E4E2 Permission January 2001

33 The bar Last night G Rust Paying payee time place E6 N Paskin payer $50 input Requirement January 2001

34 requirement permission Showing Adapting The bar Last night G Rust Agreeing party time place E5 N Paskin party E4E2 Paying E6 Completed agreement This ppt E1 input XYZ E3 January 2001

35 S.A Asserting context E7 Assertion January 2001 B Bolick agent output Agreeing E5 assertion

36 requirement permission Showing Adapting The bar Last night G Rust Agreeing party time place E5 N Paskin party E4E2 Paying E6 Completed agreement This ppt E1 input XYZ E3 January 2001 place assertion Asserting E7

37 Barriers to DRM DRM (Digital Rights Management) systems at present are B2C for “unitary” rights: doesn’t deal well with B2B and modularity (“stuff is complex”). Holdup 1: Rights vocabularies need descriptive vocabularies and identifiers - not yet ready. Holdup 2: Events model is needed to integrate descriptions and rights - event-based tools not yet developed before more mature interoperable developments start to emerge. January 2001

38 the analysis Godfrey Rust, Data Definitions, London W3C DRM workshop, January 2001 January 2001


Download ppt "The analysis Godfrey Rust, Data Definitions, London W3C DRM workshop, January 2001 January 2001."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google