Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

oscri - [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes

oscri AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Oscri mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Martin Springer <ms AT osalliance.com>
  • To: oscri AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes
  • Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:56:19 +0100

Hi Joe, All,

thank you for your great summary of the RC team's response.

Please note that a registry identifies content items (data) and not
works (abstract ideas). A registry may offer to identify works and issue
work Identfiers. However, a given work may have many manifestations
(e.g. recordings of different concerts).

Content registration should support "versioning". A creator can register
a work by sending the first fixation to a registry (e.g. uploading a
file from a music editor). After some time he may want to register a
recording of the same work (e.g. by uploading a recording made in a
club). Both recordings have the same work identifier.

Therefore, as Roland wrote, the "release" as an atomic object for
registrations of content appears more suitable than just the work.

As a contributor to the Digital Media Project (DMP) I see a further
requirement for building open, interoperable and distributed registry
systems: a standardized protocol between a Content Creation Device (CCD)
and a Content Identificaton Device (CID).

In the DMP specification we defined two protocols to identify content
(see [1], p.206/207):

Protocol to Identify Content

The following provide 2 protocols. In the first, the Content Item
itself (i.e. the DCI) is sent to the CID from the CCD. In the second
only the hash is communicated.

A) Identify Content with transfer of DCI

This Protocol specifies how to obtain an identifier for a Content Item
from a Content Identification Device (CID). This protocol requires the
CCD to send the complete DCI to the CID. This Protocol is as follows:

1) CCD and CID mutually Authenticate

2) The CCD sends to the CID an didl-msxip:IdentifyContentRequest [2.24.3];

3)The CID

4) Assigns a new Content Identifier to the received DCI

5) Adds the Identifier to received DCI

6) Digitally Signs or otherwise Hashes the received DCI

7) Stores the Content ID and the generated Hash value in the CID database

8) Returns the modified DCI to requesting party by including it in an
dmprcip:IdentifyContentResponse message [2.24.4].

B) Identify Content with transfer of Signature/Hash

This Protocol specifies how to obtain an identifier for a Content Item
from a Content Identification Device (CID). This protocol requires the
CCD to send only the Hash of the Identified DCI to the CID. This
Protocol is as follows:

1) CID and CCD mutually Authenticate

2) CCD request a Content Identifier from the CID by sending a
dmprcip:RequestContentIdentifier

3) If the request from the CCD can be satisfied, the CID

a) generates the requested Identifier

b) generates an dmprcip:RequestIdentifierResponse message containing the
Identifier [2.24.7]

4) CCD

a) Adds the received Identifier to the DCI to be Identified

b) Computes the hash of the DCI with the Identifier included

c) Sends a dmprcip:RegisterIdentifier message to the CID

5) The CID

a) Stores the Identifier together with the Hash in the CID database
for future reference.

b) Replies with an dmprcip:Ack message to the CCD

Best,

Martin Springer
Registered Commons

[1] http://www.dmpf.org/open/dmp1200.pdf

Joe Benso wrote:

> In response to Nathan's questions, the RC team would like to contribute...

> * How do we identify content between registries? (ie, "are URIs enough?")

> URI + optional physical copy at registry

> : * What is the minimal feature set you need to make a truly useful
> registry?

> technically: hash-code, timestamp, licensing-templates (CC, GPL,...)

> organisation: trusted, long-term-operation, conformant to digital signature
> laws in jurisdiction of country of operation, have database registered with
> national data protection agencies

> : * How are misuses/misclaims policed?

> define revocation procedure in policy, registry must publish any withdrawn
> works

> : What questions are you hoping to have answered next week? What do you
> : see as valuable outcomes?

> Joint promotion of registries
> Be aware, that there are already many registries out there (look at
> libraries,
> music industry, film industry, ...)
> Authority needs to co-operate with IFPI, patent offices, etc
> Registration authority should not charge fee, in order to be attractive also
> for micro-registries.
--
:: Martin Springer :: Consultant ::
:: ms AT OSalliance.com :: M +49 172 3036702 ::
:: T +49 30 41717658 :: GPG 1024D/23058565 ::



  • [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes, Martin Springer, 12/09/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page