- From: LAURA DAWSON <ljndawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:47:00 -0400
- To: "Madans, Phil" <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Digital Publishing IG Mailing List <public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org>
Phil, I well remember that policy statement and all the work poured into creating both versions of it. I guess I should have said, instead of ※lack of clarity§, ※unwillingness of decision-makers at many publishing houses to read the statement or apply what they read§. Which is a common problem - we can create all the documentation in the world, but people*s willingness to read it will vary depending on the pain they*re experiencing. We see this all the time at Bowker with regard to self-published authors entering their data into our system while ignoring the instructions as to how to do so. On 9/23/14, 1:40 PM, "Madans, Phil" <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com> wrote: >As the current chair of the BISG Identification Committee I would have to >take some exception to point number 2 below. The ID committee, after a >long and careful process, published two iterations of a Policy Statement >dealing with the identification of digital product, which goes into detail >and provides use cases for the assignment ofISBNs including those for >various forms of DRM. And that is the key here. DRM, or usage >constraints, are complex with digital products. Kobo using Adobe DRM part >of the transaction with a customer is one form. A publisher allowing both >the sale and rental of the same digital product is another, as is a >provider limiting what the end customer can do with content in terms of >printing, or not printing. I can go into more detail here but the Policy >Paper is freely available here: >https://www.bisg.org/best-practices-identifying-digital-content-0. So >there is guidance out there. > >The confusion, which is echoed in the Digital Preservation piece, is this >conception, or misconception about buying a physical book and only >licensing digital content. If the content in question is copyrighted, then >you are always licensing the content. For a physical book you are buying a >package of licensed content. While you own the package and can sell it, >loan it or toss it in the garbage, what you can*t do is run the pages >through a scanner and sell the pdf version. When you buy one of our >hardcover books, for instance, there are two transactions going on >simultaneously, the rights transaction for the content and the purchase >transaction for the package. For digital content, those transactions >happen separately. One transaction is licensing the content, but there has >to be another transaction to obtain the platform, the package, on which to >render the content you*ve licensed〞a computer, an ereader, a tablet, a >phone. This is what causes a great deal of confusion and complexity, >because there are so many platforms out there and all different abilities >and functionality. And with no longer having the constraint of fitting the >content to a particular package, you can do so many more things, like >adding different content, music, video, animation, sound,use different >business models for the same content, different usage constraints. That >is, of course, the frustration being described in the Digital Preservation >piece. > >The ISBN was created to as a product identifier to track physical products >through the supply chain. We have tried very hard to adapt that to the >digital world, but in the end, I think there is still a big question about >whether the ISBN is the best identifier for digital content in the long >run. > >As for the work identifier, I think Laura gives a very good summary of the >issues. The ID committee spent a few months trying to come up with a >viable idea for a work identifier, and in the end, we could not get a >consensus. In the absence of an industry work identifier (the ISTC was 15 >years in development it seems), a lot of people came up with their own >proprietary ID schemes along the lines Laura pointed out. Whether an ISTC >is a real work Identifier or not is a matter of debate. I disagree that ii >is. It is actually an attribute of the ISBN〞-hat is how they are assigned. > Different ISBNs of the same master content might have different ISTC*s. >Translations for instance. Abbridged and unabridged audio. They can be >linked, so one ISBN may have multiple ISTC*s associated with it. There are >those of us that believe that a Work identifier should sit on a level >above the ISBN. Again a matter of debate. There were very good reasons for >the ISTC not being adopted. The vagueness of how they were to be assigned >and the complexity pretty high among them. > >And I certainly agree with Laura that it isn*t going to get simpler. > >Phil > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------ >Phil Madans | Executive Director of Digital Publishing Technology | >Hachette Book Group | 237 Park Avenue NY 10017 |212-364-1415 | >phil.madans@hbgusa.com <mailto:david.young@hbgusa.com> > > > > >On 9/23/14, 12:04 PM, "Bill Kasdorf" <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote: > >>+1 This is a GREAT concise summary of the ISBN and ISTC issues. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: LAURA DAWSON [mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:40 AM >>To: Ivan Herman; W3C Public Digital Publishing IG Mailing List >>Subject: Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read.... >> >>I work for the US ISBN Agency and used to chair the BISG Identification >>Committee (I still serve on it, but had to step down as chair once I >>started with Bowker, because I didn易t want the appearance of conflict of >>interest), and I can attest that the identification problem is related to >>several factors: >> >>1. Mis-application of ISBNs - publishers not assigning separate ISBNs to >>different formats of ebooks, as per the standard; or publishers not >>assigning ANY ISBNs to their digital editions - inconsistent use of any >>standard leads to confusion in the marketplace (and new standards being >>developed to combat problems that proper application of the old standard >>could have solved - the xkcd problem) 2. Lack of clarity as to what >>constitutes a use case for assigning a new ISBN on a different DRM system >>- publishers just don易t believe that different DRM should warrant such a >>thing; the international ISBN organization disagrees. In truth, because >>digital books are so siloed on their platform, it易s a use case that >>practically hasn易t come up yet; until we can read Kobo books on our >>Kindles, it易s a purely theoretical issue. >>3. Lack of uptake on ISTC, which the paper points out. ISTC has not >>gained traction (in the US at least) for three reasons: Lack of publisher >>control (anyone can assign an ISTC to a work - a library, an aggregator, >>a literary agent - it does not have to come from the publisher, which >>makes publishers uneasy); inability to successfully define across the >>supply chain what constitutes a 昆work昌 (who decides? Do translations >>count? What is a 昆work昌 to a publisher is very different from what a >>昆work昌 is to a library, to a retailer, to the end user, etc); the >>likelihood that different editions from different publishers would be >>linked and consumers would have more choice (publishers benefit from your >>not knowing that there易s a competing edition out there somewhere). >> >>I don易t see this issue getting any simpler in the near term, >>unfortunately. >> >> >>On 9/23/14, 7:19 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>>This is just an FYI: may be an interesting to read. Nothing >>>Earth-shattering and, no surprise, the biggest problems for the digital >>>preservation is the unique identification of books and DRM. But it is a >>>good reference to have... (the first issue is clearly related to >>>metadata, too). >>> >>>Title: Preserving eBooks >>> >>>Authors: Amy Kirchhoff (Portico) and Sheila Morrissey (Ithaka) >>> >>>DPC Technology Watch Report 14-01 June 2014 >>> >>>Full Text: >>> >>>http://dx.doi.org/10.7207/twr14-01 >>>36 pages; PDF. >>> >>>Source: Digital Preservation Coalition >>> >>>Abstract: >>> >>>This report discusses current developments and issues with which >>>public, national, and higher education libraries, publishers, >>>aggregators, and preservation institutions must contend to ensure >>>long-term access to eBook content. These issues include legal questions >>>about the use, reuse, sharing and preservation of eBook objects; format >>>issues, including the sometimes tight coupling of eBook content with >>>particular hardware platforms; the embedding of digital rights >>>management artefacts in eBook files to restrict access to them; and the >>>diverse business ecosystem of eBook publication, with its associated >>>complexities of communities of use and, ultimately, expectations for >>>preservation. >>> >>> >>>---- >>>Ivan Herman, W3C >>>Digital Publishing Activity Lead >>>Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>mobile: +31-641044153 >>>GPG: 0x343F1A3D >>>WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > >This may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended >recipient, please notify the sender, delete immediately, and understand >that no disclosure or reliance on the information herein is permitted. >Hachette Book Group may monitor email to and from our network.
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2014 17:47:47 UTC