Interoperability
“Interoperability is the ability of independent systems to exchange meaningful
information and initiate actions from each other, in order to operate together to mutual benefit. In particular, it envisages the ability for loosely-coupled independent systems to be able to collaborate and communicate”.125
To facilitate identifier interoperability, three areas for development were suggested by the ISO:126
• information associated with an identified entity should be ‘painlessly referenced’ in the context of one class of entity even though it originated in another;
• agreed meanings and vocabulary should be defined and mapped between identifier schemes;
• agreed methods of information sharing should be implemented. (Minimum data sets cannot fulfil the requirements of all parties, and therefore need to be carefully considered).127
“Until recently almost every Industry Sector, if not every Industry Player, had its own Party Identifier, making it all proprietary and not at all interoperable. This was due to the fact that Party-related information carries a lot of sensitive data such as birth dates, personal contact information, contractual clauses, or commercial terms. Information sharing in this context may have grave implications and repercussions.”128
Although there has been considerable emphasis on promotion of identification schemes and the adoption of standard or reference metadata sets, there has been less emphasis on the impact of cross-sector interoperability. While the music industry has been attempting to solve the problem of matching the distinct ISWC/ISRC systems for over a decade, the explosion of digital multimedia content, in response to demand generated by technological innovation in content distribution and the ubiquitous use of media recording and playback devices, has made it imperative that organisations understand the implications of using one industry identifier in another context, and the importance of importing metadata from one identification scheme into a system based on another.
“It is clear that interoperability of all these media identifiers and metadata schemes will be required... and metadata is now becoming key to interoperability.”129
125 Paskin N., 2006. Identifier Interoperability A Report on Two Recent ISO Activities, D-Lib Magazine Volume 12 Number 4
126 Ibid.
127 Ibid.
128 Nuttall F.X. & Oh S.G. 2011 Party Identifiers, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49:6, 528-537, DOI:
10.1080/01639374.2011.603075 129 Paskin N., 2006.
Interoperability means much more than the technological systems of metadata exchange, however. It is fundamentally about the quality of the relationships across an ecosystem and the actions required to make these relationships productive.
Standardisation
This process, fundamental to interoperability, is aligned to messaging systems and information protocols which involve consensus, collaboration, negotiation and adoption across a range of shared interests. Standardisation of terminology and identification provides faster time to market, improved operational and data quality, shared cost
reductions between partners throughout the digital supply chain, and counters duplication of work by homogenising the required data feeds. However, parties with systems that support a standard have also to consider that others in the data supply chain may operate systems built around their own proprietary models or may have already committed to supporting different or competing models based on their distinct ‘intentionality’. The granularity required for these systems will therefore be different for each application.
Although standardisation is desirable, industry has to consider how first to establish an agreed system of governance across these multiple, variable frameworks. Any proposed holistic solution needs to address the current, system imbalances, while offering potential adoption to wider constituencies. In this way, standardisation can offer benefits to all parts of the value chain.
Digital Data Exchange (DDEX), a “consortium of leading media companies, music licensing organisations, digital service providers and technical intermediaries, focused on the creation of digital supply chain standards”,130 has been instrumental in promoting practical, technical solutions throughout the ecosystem. DDEX governance structure (see below) aims to reflect a balance of members, “currently split roughly one third for owners or administrators of musical work, one third owners or administrators of sound recording rights owners and one third digital music retailers and technology service providers.”131
Figure 18: DDEX Governance structure (DDEX 2019)
130 About DDEX http://ddex.net/about-ddex/Accessed 30 April 2019.
131 Ibid
DDEX offers three types of membership (Charter, Full and Associate) with corresponding degrees of access and benefits. Membership fees reflect these levels of access although any organisation can take out a license to use DDEX standards, free of charge.
Data privacy and confidentiality
In most countries, the aggregation of private data within a database is highly scrutinised.
Furthermore, legislation has sought to strengthen the protections given to individuals through the establishment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).132 To be usable in an international environment, descriptive elements of contributing parties have to be kept to a strict minimum. The dates of birth and death (or creation and dissolution for legal entities) are widely used, as they provide due to their permanence, a unique and reliable indication of the party, yet some countries prohibit public exposures or exportations of such information.
“In many, particularly European, countries, it is required by law that any database that maintains information about individuals be declared to a governmental organisation.
Party Identification databases typically fall in that category; anyone creating such a database is bound to a legal obligation to declare it.”133
Although this promotes transparency and redress mechanisms, there is a concern that the cross linking of identifiers across a system could expose confidential and sensitive data.
One proposed solution is to consider proprietary identifiers as a ‘private layer’ operating in individual secure silos. On top of this private layer, an open ‘public layer’ could be built as a cross identifier. Some propose that this would maintain confidentiality without the need for modifications to existing IT systems.134 (Effectively, data associated with the IPN/IPI etc.
is kept private even if the identifier itself becomes disclosed.)
Figure 19: Party identifiers - Public/private layers (Nuttal & Oh 2011)
132 The General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”) is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9565-2015-INIT/en/pdf )
133 Nuttall F.X. & Oh S.G. 2011 134 Ibid