Evolution of Internet Infrastructure and Standards

1. Digital Object Identifier Norman Paskin, International DOI Foundation doi>

2. Main themes doi> Previous: ERPANET Cork meeting (June 2004): Principles of persistent identifiers: “The development of persistent identifiers”. Keynote presentation made at ERPANET Persistent Identifiers seminar, Cork. June 2004 http://www.erpanet.org/events/2004/cork/presentations/040617PaskinPIConcepts.pdf DOI system as one solution: “Overview of Digital Object Identifier (DOI) System”. Presentation made at ERPANET Persistent Identifiers seminar, Cork. June 2004 http://www.erpanet.org/events/2004/cork/presentations/040617PaskinDOIpresentation.pdf Now: Update on key developments • Internet infrastructure • Standards • Social infrastructure • Value added • Example DOI applications Responses to issues raised: slides modified, more in full version on web site

3. doi> Internet infrastructure “The governance of the DNS will not completely encompass future Internet addressing and navigation, which is a good thing, not a shortcoming. The system of domain names, IP numbers, root servers and protocol identifiers is not static but a technology capable of evolving into a better form. As such, the current system should not be treated as sacrosanct, but amenable to innovation. The paradox of Internet governance is that any institutional arrangement will by nature be a collusion of political power and financial interests that acts to freeze into place the current technical design, and make new and better approaches almost impossible to emerge-much as the system of national telecom operators dominated communications for a century until the Internet emerged as the unlikely force that upended it. We can already see that future Internet navigation will not simply be addresses linked to computers, but to billions of devices, file-documents, real-time video and audio streams, objects though RFID tags, and even constantly changing instantiations of information - all which will make today's DNS and its governance seem anachronistic. Allowing for alternative addressing and navigation across the network, alongside a sanctioned 'legacy' DNS, will be a balanced way to achieve diversity, experimentation and progress, while also ensuring stability and reliability.” Kenneth Neil Cukier (Technology Correspondent, The Economist) at the OII Forum on Internet Governance 6 May 2005 i.e. an architecture which sustains legacy and supports innovation

4. doi> DOI as a packaged system: minimum reinvention Numbering scheme Policies doi> Data Model Internet Resolution

5. DOI syntax can includeany existing identifier “label” formal or informal, of any entity • An identifier “container” e.g. • 10.1234/NP5678 • 10.5678/ISBN-0-7645-4889-4 • 10.2224/2004-10-ISO-DOI • NISO Z39.84 DOI Syntax (2000) • 5 year review in 2005 completing. • Revision of case sensitivity, to be amended in line with use • Approved subject to minor edits

6. Resolve from DOI to data • initially to location (URL) – persistence • May be to multiple data: • Multiple locations • Metadata • Services • Extensible • Uses the Handle system - IETF RFCs 3650, 3651, 3652 • See Release 1.0, September 2003 "Online Registries: The DNS and Beyond...“ [doi:10.1340/309registries ] • URI specification pending • Possible URN spec • May use http: • 10.123/456 as dx.doi.org/10.123/456 Internet resolution allows a DOI to link to any & multiple pieces of current data

7. DOI Data Model = Metadata tools: • a data dictionary to define + • a grouping mechanism to relate • “The semantic web bit” • Necessary for interoperability • “Enabling information that originates in one context to be used in another in ways that are as highly automated as possible”. • Able to use existing metadata • Mapped using a standard dictionary • Can describe any entity at any level of granularity • indecsDD which incorporates ISO MPEG 21000 part 6 RDD • IDF is the MPEG21 RDD registration authority <indecs> Data Dictionary + DOI AP framework

8. DOI policies allow any business model for practical implementations • Implementation through IDF • Technical infrastructure: resolution mechanism, proxy servers, mirrors, back-up, central dictionary, • Social infrastructure: persistence commitments, fall-back procedures, cost-recovery (self-sustaining), shared use of ip • Not a standard but a Registration Authority/maintenance agency (cf bar code and EAN) • DOI System for standardisation in ISO TC46SC9 (ISBN etc) • Registration agencies • Each can develop own applications • Use in “own brand” ways appropriate for their community

9. doi> Update on DOI system 2005 meeting: presentations on web site: http://www.doi.org/doi_presentations/members_meeting_2005/agenda.html See DOI News Key theme: social infrastructure issues • 17m DOIs, >1300 naming authorities • Modest growth in DOIs of most RAs • One new sector (data: TIB, N4L) • Self funding model: underlying income must balance costs – vulnerable to problems. Growth rate? • Network effects – communities more effective than small or start-up RAs • Relation to handle implementations

10. DOI Deposits – by RA per year doi> 10 RAs: but one dominates numerically at present (6 months)

11. doi> Cumulative DOI Prefixes – by RA/year Naming authorities (prefix) development presages more growth

12. doi> Update on DOI system Key theme: social infrastructure issues • Completing main development work • from initial implementation (single URL redirect) • to full (Multiple resolution, metadata management) • Continuing growth • Good progress with standardising – syntax, data dictionary, core specification • IP: patent policy • Restructuring organisation • Wider advisory board, change of some internal aspects

13. Value of the DOI system doi> • See “DOI factsheet: Value added by the DOI system” • Version 1.1: www.doi.org/factsheets • The value of the DOI system is from three functions: • Persistent identification • Network actionability • Semantic interoperability • Value is added by each of these three • Each offers value • Can have one or more for a DOI application • The combination provides best functionality/advantage

14. Example 1 Crossref – now 400 publishers, 16 million DOIs, Google, etc

15. Example 2: OECD – use of DOIs for tables etc Adding value for both print and online readers: Printed under each table, chart and graph, DOI-based links offer instant access to the matching spreadsheet in Excel TM

16. Examples of data citations • Nozawa, Toru (2004): IPCC-DDC_CCSRNIES_SRES_B2: 211 YEARS MONTHLY MEANS, National Institute for Environmental Studies and Center for Climate System Research Japan, WDCC. doi:10.1594/WDCC/CCSRNIES_SRES_B2 • Kamm,H; Machon, L; Donner, S (2004): Gas Chromatography (KTB Field Lab), GFZ Potsdam. doi:10.1594/GFZ/ICDP/KTB/ktb-geoch-gaschr-p Example 3: TIB – expecting 1.5m DOIs in year one

17. What is the Eleonet project • Eleonet stands for: “European Learning Object Network” • Is a project co-funded by the European Commission within the eTEN programme • It is described in a single phrase as follow: • Eleonet aims at creating a technological system, based on appropriate DOI application profile(s), to facilitate the exchange of educational content within the eLearning value chain at European level Example 4: Eleonet – several DOI agencies collaborating

18. The consortium • AIE (co-ordinator) and Cineca - the two parent organisations of mEDRA • Editrain in Spain, a mEDRA partner since 2002 • Nielsen BookData in UK • L3S / TIB in Germany, the most recently appointed DOI-RA • INDIRE: an Italian public organisation specialised in metadata for educational content Example 4: Eleonet – several DOI agencies collaborating

19. The expected output • A DOI registration system for European Learning Objects (based on mEDRA technology)… • …including complete metadata schema (based on existing ones, LOM in particular)… • …possibly mapped within the iDD system • A database of metadata on LOs • A search engine to explore and query the DB • A resolution system, based on DOI technology, to reach multiple repositories Example 4: Eleonet – several DOI agencies collaborating

20. Some issues from the meeting (1) doi> • Technology • http? YesDOI 10.123/456as http://dx.doi.org/10.123.456 • but the world does not stop evolving: “sustain legacy, support innovation” – multiple, secure resolution, etc (what’s the problem?) • Services not identifier mechanisms are important for users • IDF = Some technical infrastructure: mirrors, copies, backups, proxies, etc • But mainly social infrastructure • Communities of self-interest • Persistence of doi.org? dx.doi.org? (re e.g. loc.gov). • It’s communities, not technical design: stakeholders • >1300 naming authorities - may not all care but some will • Just as persistence of handle.net is through CNRI, DOI, ADL, DTIC, Grid,…Matrushka dolls • Persistence of data dictionaries – other stakeholders ONIX MPEG21, etc

21. Some issues from the meeting (2) doi> • Practical rules – • e.g what happens, if RA goes away, to its existing DOIs: specific rules re prefixes, new DOIs, edits, transfers, aliases, fees… • e.g. what happens if IDF goes away, CNRI goes away: contractual bindings (RA-IDF-CNRI-Data Dictionary…) • Network effects • Communities adopt DOI most easily if they have: • a reason: (Crossref, TIB) and/or • an ability to mandate (EC) • The more stakeholders adopt DOI, the more persistent DOI is • Building communities is hard • People, politics, suspicion, NIH, FIG. • Costs effort: self-funding bootstrapping, leadership • Herding cats – different viewpoints • Legal issues – self-interest can mean selfish interest e.g. intellectual property conflicts • But worth doing

22. doi> n.paskin@doi.org www.doi.org