The DOI Handbook
Home > DOI® Handbook > Table of Contents > 8 Registration Agencies
 
 

Previous Chapter: 7 International DOI Foundation    Next Chapter: 9 Operating Procedures

8 Registration Agencies

This chapter explains how obtain a DOI® name prefix and select a Registration Agency (RA), the role of Registration Agencies in the DOI® System, their relationship and obligations with the IDF, and the business and technical models that they can adopt to implement the DOI System.

© International DOI Foundation 2006

 
8.1 How to Obtain a DOI Name Prefix
      8.1.1 Selecting a Registration Agency
      8.1.2 Registering a DOI name with the IDF
8.2 The role of Registration Agencies
      8.2.1 Overview
      8.2.2 Development of Registration Agency role
      8.2.3 RA technical requirements
      8.2.4 RA information management requirements
      8.2.5 RA general requirements
      8.2.6 Summary of functions
8.3 Business model for Registration Agencies
8.4 Criteria for becoming a Registration Agency
8.5 Formalizing the relationship between an RA and the IDF
      8.5.1 Current procedures
      8.5.2 Future developments
8.6 Registration Agencies and IDF governance and policy
8.7 Use of DOI System Trademarks in domain names
8.8 Fee structure for Registration Agencies
8.9 Operational and technical requirements for Registration Agencies
8.10 Registration Agency Local Handle Service (LHS) Operation
      8.10.1 Advantages of using a Local Handle Service at an RA
      8.10.2 DOI System Handle Service configuration
      8.10.3 RA responsibilities
      8.10.4 Prefix allocation and service configuration

 

8.1 How to obtain a DOI Name Prefix

To obtain a DOI name prefix, apply to a DOI System Registration Agency.

8.1.1 Selecting a Registration Agency

RAs are established to provide services on behalf of specific user communities. CrossRef, for example, is providing citation-linking services for the scientific publishing sector. Publishers will choose CrossRef as their Registration Agency because they wish to avail themselves of the specific service or services offered by CrossRef.

We anticipate the development of a growing number of RAs with sectoral specialisms of this kind, which may have global application. At the same time, we also anticipate a requirement for regionally based RAs, able to offer (for example) local language support. The smooth running of the DOI System will require close collaboration between different RAs so that registrants can avail themselves of the full range of services that are offered.

For a list of our current Registration Agencies and their area of coverage, please see the Registration Agencies section of the DOI website.

8.1.2 Registering a DOI name with the IDF

The IDF itself registers DOI names for internal identification of Registration Agencies, Application profiles, etc. The IDF may also assign DOI name prefixes directly: however as DOI names are used in the context of applications, we actively encourage users to assign DOI names for a specific application, through a Registration Agency, or to develop their own RA (with others if needed) if they feel their requirements aren't met by existing RAs. RAs are able to offer support for metadata allocation, social infrastructure and other support. Prefixes direct from IDF are restricted for experimental rather than production use.

In order to obtain a DOI name prefix for experimental use only, contact the IDF (contact@doi.org). Any prefixes that may be issued directly by the IDF may be charged at $1,000 per prefix and will be issued purely at the discretion of the IDF.

8.2 The role of Registration Agencies

8.2.1 Overview

At the outset of the DOI System development, a very simple model was introduced whereby a prefix assignment is purchased for a one-off fee. A fee was introduced not to cover actual costs, but to recognize the fact that some charging for DOI names would be the intention. IDF used a simple initial economic model: a charge of $1000 for allocation of a prefix (a one-off charge though with the right to vary this at a future date) allowing unlimited number of DOI names to be constructed using that prefix. It was recognized at the outset that this fee structure was a starting point but would be insufficiently flexible for the long term.

DOI names allocated using these prefixes purchased directly from IDF are registered without structured metadata: they are now defined as being in the zero Application Profile. The disadvantage of using direct prefix purchase is that IDF cannot offer the level of metadata support and social infrastructure support of the type which can be given by a Registration Agency. Prefixes obtained directly from IDF may however be useful if you wish to experiment or consider developing your own applications. Prefixes will now only be issued through this direct route at the discretion of the IDF Director.

We now use a wide variety of existing or potential business models, using third party Registration Agencies, in recognition of the fact that such a simple model is not a "one size fits all" solution. All future DOI names will be registered through one of many Registration Agencies, each of which will use one or more defined DOI® Application Profiles and each of which is empowered to offer much more flexible pricing structures. The pricing structures and business models of the Registration Agencies will not be determined by the IDF; each RA will be autonomous as to its business model. Business models for these agencies could include, but not be limited to, cost recovery via direct charging based on prefix allocation, numbers of DOI names allocated, numbers of DOI names resolved, volume discounts, usage discounts, stepped charges, or any mix of these; indirect charging via cross subsidy from other value added services, agreed links, etc. The IDF will place minimal constraints on the business models offered by RA's, and enter into discussion on practical implementation of any of these.

The primary (and minimum) role of Registration Agencies is to provide services to Registrants -- allocating prefixes, registering DOI names and providing the necessary infrastructure to allow Registrants to declare and maintain metadata and state data. This is expected to encompass quality assurance measures, ensuring that state data is accurate and up-to-date and that metadata is consistent and complies with both DOI® Kernel and appropriate DOI Application Profile. All Registration Agencies will be expected to support registration of at least one DOI® AP (as well as the Base AP). Registration Agencies will provide adequate security to ensure that only the Registrant (or someone acting with the Registrant's permission) is able to maintain both metadata and state data. Registration Agencies are expected actively to promote the widespread adoption of the DOI, and to cooperate with the IDF in the development of the DOI System as a whole.

8.2.2 Development of Registration Agency role

The IDF is moving to full deployment of the DOI System in co-operation with Registration Agencies and potential RAs (primarily through its Registration Agency Working Group (RAWG)), not seeking to impose rules on RAs without discussion. The requirement to "implement mechanisms for quality control", for example, should not be seen as implying that a pre-existing set of criteria for quality control is already available; it is expected that Registration Agencies (RAs) will propose suitable and practicable criteria.

The relationship between RAs and the IDF will ultimately be contractual. The formal agreement between the IDF and RA is the remit of the RAWG and a detailed Terms and Conditions document is available: this is work in progress and subject to modification. The followings sections provide a summary; note however that the more detailed Terms and Conditions document takes precedence in the event of any apparent conflict.

8.2.3 RA technical requirements

  • Assign prefixes to new registrants in accordance with IDF standard terms; liaise with the resolution system provider to register prefixes in system directories.
  • Ensure that DOI names under this prefix are loaded with corresponding URLs (or other data types) into a globally available resolution system nominated by the IDF (e.g. CNRI's Handle System®) in timely/accurate manner.
  • Liaise with IDF and CNRI to agree definition of any necessary additional data types.
  • Promote the use of native resolution protocols (HDL) in applications in preference to proxy server implementations

8.2.4 RA information management requirements

  • Ensure that appropriate minimal supporting metadata for each DOI name (the DOI Kernel metadata) is declared and made freely available for look up.
  • Support the "Base-AP" (kernel metadata only)
  • Support at least one additional Application Profile appropriate to the particular community of interest served and the applications provided to them. RAs may use any AP, but must have an agreed AP for each DOI name registered.
  • Manage AP metadata by use of, and in conformance to, a schema and data dictionaries agreed with the IDF.
  • Deposit an escrow copy of data with the IDF under agreed terms.

8.2.5 RA general requirements

  • Implement mechanisms for quality control of DOI name resolution and metadata registration.
  • Support and promote multiple resolution capability.
  • If they wish to do so, subcontract or partner with others to deliver part of their services.

8.2.6 Summary of functions

IP registrants

  • Register with one or more registration agencies
  • Ensure appropriate content management of own material (maintenance of own URLs and metadata), either directly or by contract (e.g. with RA)

Registration Agencies

  • agreements with IP owners
  • registration of prefix and individual DOI names with DOI System
  • definition of appropriate Genres and mapping to other appropriate metadata sets
  • metadata collection/added value
  • provision of data to Value Added Services by agreement with IP registrants, etc (may include services run by the same organisation)
  • marketing of the DOI System and related services
  • training - guideline development, etc.
  • (optional) maintenance of Handle mirror site
  • (optional) subcontract service provision

These areas may be specific or customised to one Registration Agency, provided only that top level minimal common specifications are followed.

IDF

  • minimal common agreements for registration agencies
  • provide DOI name resolution service
  • ensure resolution service integrity and performance
  • maintain Data Type Registries (fields within handle specifying different multiple resolution results)
  • provide DOI System-specific guidelines on scope, metadata implementation, etc., sufficient to enable RAs to prepare appropriate marketing, guidelines, and training materials for their own use.
  • maintain DOI Genre (application profile) inventory
  • provide basic information necessary for marketing materials etc.
  • policies e.g. archiving, testing, etc.
  • interaction with other related activities, standards bodies, etc.
  • promotion and further development of the generic DOI System
  • governance administration and agreement with RAs on division of tasks
  • training/advice for RAs on content management issues relating to the DOI System (e.g. use of Data Model)
  • role in governing body (operating federation)

8.3 Business model for Registration Agencies

Registration Agencies must comply with the policies and technical standards established by the IDF, but are then free to develop their own business model for running their businesses. Unlike the IDF, Registration Agencies may be run "for profit". There is no appropriate "one size fits all" model and we anticipate that the following business models may involve:

  • Direct charging based on prefix allocation, numbers of DOI names allocated, numbers of DOI names resolved, with volume discounts, usage discounts, stepped charges, or any mix of these;
  • Indirect charging through cross subsidy of the basic registration functions from related value added services.

Registration agencies will determine whether charges are made for prefix allocation or on another basis.

Our aim is to encourage the appropriate use of prefixes via Registration Agencies without undue financial penalty, to encourage the use of multiple prefixes within a single organisation. This may prove administratively convenient, especially in large organisations or at a different level of granularity (for example, prefixes allocated to imprints, record labels, image libraries, magazines, journals) as appropriate to a particular Application Profile. Registration Agencies are enabled to provide prefixes as part of their overall package of services to Registrants. The charge and process for obtaining a prefix via the Agency is a matter for individual Registration Agencies.

The IDF intends to place minimal constraints on the business models offered by Registration Agencies, and is willing to enter into discussions with any interested parties on the practical implementation of appropriate models. The IDF Board has established guidelines for the negotiation of agreements with Registration Agencies and these are detailed above.

Registration Agencies may choose to provide other DOI System-related services to Registrants, without limitation (so long as they conform with IDF Policy). These services may include any combination of value added services in, for example, data, content or rights management. Registration Agencies may also develop services that exploit the metadata that they collect. Registration Agencies may (but are not obliged to) establish their own local handle service.

8.4 Criteria for becoming a Registration Agency

Applicants for Registration Agency status may be any profit-making or non-profit-making organization that can represent a defined "community of interest" for allocating prefixes to registrants. Registrants can be any individual or organization that wishes to uniquely identify intellectual property entities using the DOI System.

Other than in exceptional circumstances, candidates for RA status will be expected to first become a Member of the IDF in a non-RA category. This will enable the organisation to construct a formal application with the benefit of experience and advice from the IDF, its technical partners, other RAs, the IDF Technical Working Group interactions, and the RA Working Group (on which only RAs are represented but whose conclusions are made known to all members) and have access to the member-only information provided by IDF.

Registration Agencies will become increasingly closely involved in the Governance of the DOI System. Equally, the IDF will be looking at commercial partners to provide future financial support of the central services on which the DOI System as a whole depends. Criteria for Registration Agencies (RA) acceptance are not yet comprehensively defined, as it is inappropriate at this stage to lay down over-rigid specifications. Some major criteria, which will be taken into account when considering applications, are:

  • Commitment to membership of IDF and a role with the Registration Agency Working Group (RAWG);
  • Acceptance of non-exclusive terms;
  • Submission of a detailed written proposal addressing the following areas:
  • The "community of interest" that is to be represented should be identified and delineated;
  • A description of the proposed application for the DOI names to be registered: this should be at minimum a text description with some explanation. Ideally, but not compulsory, it should be accompanied by a detailed technical specification on the form of a DOI® Application Profile; the latter step will be easier when the DOI System Namespace (data dictionary and registry) is available but such profiles can certainly be generated at present especially where the field is covered by existing well-defined metadata schemes such as ONIX;
  • An outline description of the business model, describing in particular how registrants will be engaged with the RA and on what terms in relation to DOI System application and use, along with a revenue model and plans to establish the appropriate consultative framework within the community of interest: it is not necessary to provide a detailed view of business aspects not related to DOI name registration and use, but it is important that the IDF have a perspective on the likely way in which the DOI System will be perceived by the RAs users;
  • Evidence of the financial viability of the applicant organization;
  • Evidence of the ability of the organization to enforce policies such as persistence of identification;
  • Evidence of appropriate technical ability and understanding of the DOI System (both the Handle System and Data Model aspects). The candidate should set out its technical and organizational plans for establishing a metadata repository. It is expected that some applicants will already have a mature systems environment in place for the storage of identifiers and metadata while others will be planning to implement their own repository for the purpose of becoming a Registration Agency. In consultation with the Director of the IDF, the applicant will provide a preliminary assessment of the issues they will face in adopting Handle System technology. Specifically some thought should be given to the potential scale of the implementation, reflecting the anticipated volume requirements of DOI name Registrants. This is important in terms of anticipating the scalability of the Handle System and deciding whether or not the applicant may be required to host a Local Handle Server for this purpose.

Although some of these criteria are subjective, they provide enough substance to engage in serious dialogue, and the fact that a completely comprehensive list is not available is not an impediment to progress. At this stage it is essential to retain a degree of judgement and flexibility: there is no doubt that more RAs are welcome, but these must be chosen on so as not to prejudice future development. If only some of the criteria can be met by a candidate, the IDF can (at its discretion) offer a limited acceptance of e.g. 60 days during which all the remaining criteria are to be met.

8.5 Formalizing the relationship between an RA and the IDF

8.5.1 Current procedures

If an organization wishes to be involved in determining RA status or applying to be an RA, the way forward is to make an initial commitment by joining IDF; this allows participation in the Registration Agency Working Group and access to all IDF materials, working with IDF members in supporting and developing the system. The IDF is in a period of great expansion and development, and members enjoy early access to development information and determine the course of our work.

The long-term aim of the IDF is to migrate from an organization supported entirely by its members, to one in which an operating "federation" of appointed Registration Agencies have an increasing level of control (and an increasing level of responsibility). The initial appointment of Registration Agencies is therefore proceeding on the basis of an initial agreement between the IDF and candidate RAs which recognizes the developing nature of the DOI System and which is therefore a little less formal than we anticipate will be the case for the complete final contract.

The IDF Board will be responsible for considering all applications submitted by candidate Registration Agencies. The following initial conditions currently apply:

1. Each Registration Agency will be required to become a member of the IDF under the Registration Agency category of membership. The membership fee within this category is currently US$35,000 (GBP£18,817) and this amount must be paid in full before a new Registration Agency begins to operate. US members will be invoiced their member fees in US$ and non-US members will be invoiced their member fees in GBP£. The pound sterling value willl be calculated each year based on the US exchange rate set at the start of each year, for 2005 this is $1.86:£1.
2. A "Letter of Intent" will be agreed between the Registration Agency and the IDF setting out the basis of the relationship and the terms of operation which have been discussed and agreed (for more information contact the IDF at contact@doi.org). The letter of intent also commits the Registration Agency developing the documents on Terms and Conditions for DOI Registration Agencies into a formal IDF/RA Agreement.

The IDF will establish a more formal contractual relationship between itself and all registration agencies in due course. However, in the early adoption period, it believes that a Letter of Intent allows greater flexibility and also provides all active Registration Agencies with the opportunity to become involved in the consultative process leading to consensus on the precise terms to be covered by the formal contract. Each RA letter of intent contemplates that a definitive agreement will be developed between the parties to delineate their respective rights and obligations.

8.5.2 Future developments

IDF aims to fashion RA member arrangements that will continue to encourage maximum participation and contributions to/development of IDF projects, while allowing IDF to retain broad flexibility for universal availability of its developments and translation of those developments into commercial products (which the Contecs:DD project presages). RAs will be particularly involved in such agreements as they are likely to participate in working groups, to be a formal RA, and to have considerations of intellectual property rights. Each of these areas is to be the subject of a detailed agreement in the foreseeable future:

1. A Working Group Agreement designed to address member disclosure of proprietary information and ultimate ownership of the intellectual work product resulting from the Working Group's deliberations is to be developed.
2. A definitive Registration Agency Agreement implementing and expanding upon the terms of existing letters of intent and incorporating IDF's policies is evolving. Any individual rights granted to a particular RA will be reflected in the definitive Registration Agency Agreement executed with that RA.
3. A template Member Licensing Agreement will be developed that can be employed whenever a member (including a Registration Agency) desires to utilize intellectual property owned or developed by IDF.

8.6 Registration Agencies and IDF governance and policy

The IDF will remain a non-profit making entity, governing the DOI System on a self-financing basis with income derived from RA participation fees. The IDF determines policies and rules concerning the governance of the DOI System and standards for its management. The IDF controls the management of the DOI System through contractual relationships with CNRI for the provision of resolution services, and grants authority to Registration Agencies to become operators of the DOI System for the registration of DOIs.

Each Registration Agency will offer services to registrants as agreed on an individual basis with the IDF. There is no constraint on the business of a Registration Agency so long as it fulfils its agreed obligations to the IDF and provides an effective service to its associated registrants and the users of the system.

Each Registration Agency will provide its community with a mutually acceptable framework for discussing matters of shared concern and interest. Registrants will be contractually related to a Registration Agency. So long as a Registrant complies with the rules and policies of each applicable DOI-AP, there is no restriction on it being a customer of, or in some other way affiliated to, more than one Registration Agency.

Registration Agencies are expected actively to promote the widespread adoption of the DOI System, and to co-operate with the IDF in the development of the DOI System as a whole.

Registration Agencies properly expect to become closely involved in the Governance of the DOI System and the IDF will need increasingly to take account of their needs and to provide them with the means to represent their views. The proportion of RA representative seats on the Board is intended to increase in line with the financial contribution made by RA fees to the IDF's overall resources. Once RA fees generate the majority of the revenue, it is anticipated that the RAs will gain effective control of the IDF.

8.7 Use of DOI Trademark in domain names

DOI® and DOI.ORG® are registered trademarks of the International DOI Foundation. Trademark rights are granted through registration, not use. Thus, trademark registration is required for each individual country in which the mark is to be protected; the only exception being the European Union, which allows a single registration to cover all 15 member nations. The IDF currently owns the "DOI" trademark in the United States and the European Union.

Ideally to protect these trademarks worldwide, the IDF would register for trademark protection and the corresponding "DOI" related domain names in each national jurisdiction in which it does significant business; however, it is impractical to do so, since the time and expense associated with registration in those national jurisdictions is prohibitive. Also the IDF cannot "pre-empt" "DOI" domains in every country, since the number of variants is endless (doiarticle.com, doiregister.com, doigovernment.com etc). The IDF registers instead only generic domains such as doi.info (in this particular case, someone else, who did not have the right to use the "DOI" trademark, tried to register it; this was challenged and won by IDF under ICANN rules). It is also worth noting that in some countries, local rules mean that businesses in that country are the only bodies who can register appropriate domain names.

The trademark "DOI" may, therefore, form part of a domain name used by a Registration Agency under defined conditions. The granting of exclusive use of "DOI" related domain names to any RA in their own country however, would make the entrance of future competitors in that country less likely and more difficult.

Therefore the IDF may permit an RA to register a "DOI" related domain name in their geographical region, so long as an enforceable agreement is executed between the RA and the IDF, permitting the IDF to reclaim the domain at any time (including the termination of its status as an RA or the entrance of an RA competitor in that region) along with any intellectual property rights related to the "DOI". This will promote shared use of "DOI" related domain names in the event that competitor, or competitors, should arise in the relevant geographical region.

The Registration Agency Agreement will be the correct place to include such protections; until that document is executed however, any domain name registrations should be preceded by the signing of an interim agreement.

8.8 Fee structure for Registration Agencies

A fee is paid by RAs to the IDF in recognition of their participation in, and their ability to build a business using, the DOI System. RAs are free to establish their own business model and fee structure with their own customers.

The migration from a membership organization to an operating federation of registration agencies cannot be achieved overnight; our aim is to outline the first steps towards this and to establish the mechanism for an initial start up period. An initial fee structure agreed by the IDF Board was in place until 31 December 2002. From 1st January 2003, this has been revised, following consultation with the IDF Board and the RAs. The fee structure will be subject to future review.

The fee structure for a Registration Agency is:

  • The Registration Agency must be a current member of the IDF, the annual membership fee for which is US$35,000 (GBP£18,817). There will be no discretionary reductions in the membership fee for any members who subscribe within the Registration Agency category. US members will be invoiced their member fees in US$ and non-US members will be invoiced their member fees in GBP£. The pound sterling value will be calculated each year based on the US exchange rate set at the start of each year, for 2005 this is $1.86:£1.
  • A franchise fee will be charged. The franchise fee will be calculated as US 4 cents per DOI name registered, with a minimum and maximum as noted below. Accounting will be made on 1st January and 1st July each year. Each Registration Agency will guarantee a minimum payment of currently $20,000 each year irrespective of the number of DOI names allocated, this is split over the January and July invoicing periods.
  • The minimum element of the "per DOI name" fee will be invoiced in advance of each six-month period. When an RA registers more than the minimum number of DOI names in the preceding six-month period, the difference between the minimum already previously paid will be invoiced.
  • The franchise fee will be renegotiated if an RA registers more than 10 million DOI names during any six-month period.
  • A maintenance fee will also be charged. The fee will be on the following basis:
  • $0.01 for the first 5 million DOI names previously registered
  • $0.005 for DOI names beyond the first 5 million

At the beginning of each year, the number of DOI names previously registered will be calculated to the end of the previous year. The annual maintenance fee will be calculated based on the above levels and will be invoiced in two parts, in January and July of that year along with the relevant franchise fees.

The RA membership fees are invoiced directly by the IDF. US RA members will be invoiced their member fees in US$ and non-US members will be invoiced their member fees in GBP£. The pound sterling value will be calculated each year based on the US exchange rate set at the start of each year.

The franchise and maintenance are invoiced by Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI), as an agent of the IDF, and will be invoiced in US$ for all RA members.

8.9 Operational and technical requirements for Registration Agencies

This diagram illustrates the operational relationships between the parties and the interdependencies that exist between them within the context of the DOI System.

Figure 2

In the diagram there are two Registration Agencies (RA1 & RA2), each with responsibility for their own DOI name registrants. For the purpose of illustrating different possible scenarios, RA1 is operating and hosting a mirrored DOI System Local Handle Service, whilst RA2 does not host any Handle infrastructure. All DOI System Local Handle Services are automatically synchronized by the Handle System.

The following operational relationships are implied:

  • The IDF defines high-level operational policy and assigns the execution of this policy to the Registration Agencies.
  • The Registration Agencies enforce their own operational policy, which is specific to their 'community of interest'. This specific policy will incorporate the IDF's high-level policy.
  • Each Registration Agency administers the access rights and permissions for the DOI name registrants that form its 'community of interest'.
  • DOI Registrants submit DOI names to the Handle System along with the DOI name resolution information.
  • At the same time, the Registrant submits DOI System related metadata to the appropriate repository for the relevant DOI Application Profile. This metadata incorporates the DOI® Kernel information plus the metadata specific to the DOI-AP.
  • Each Registration Agency is responsible for managing the declaration of the metadata associated with their Registrants.
  • The DOI name provides the key to linking the DOI System related metadata with the registered DOI Handle.

An authorized Registration Agency issues prefixes to registrants and requests the resolution system provider to register such new prefixes in the Handle System. The RA maintains the systems environment for storing a minimum set of descriptive metadata, as agreed with the IDF that can be integrated with the Handle System. In addition they may implement and operate a Local Handle Service to mirror the services provided by the Global Handle Registry as illustrated by RA1 in the above diagram.

Currently, CNRI implement and maintain the Global Handle Registry on behalf of the IDF. They are responsible for providing Registration Agencies with the necessary software and technical guidance to help them implement Local Handle Servers. As the custodians of the Handle System they are also responsible for the scalability of the system and, in consultation with the IDF, for implementing future developments leading to its growth and any improvement to its technical sophistication.

The service provided by each Registration Agency is expected to encompass quality assurance measures, so that the integrity of the DOI System as a whole is maintained at the highest possible level (delivering reliable and consistent results to users). This includes ensuring that state data is accurate and up-to-date and that metadata is consistent and complies with both DOI Kernel and appropriate DOI AP standards. All Registration Agencies will be expected to support registration of at least one DOI AP (as well as the Base AP).

The Registration Agencies must provide adequate security to ensure that only the Registrant (or someone acting with the Registrant's permission) is able to maintain both metadata and state data.

8.10 Registration Agency Local Handle Service (LHS) Operation

IDF operates a Central DOI Directory as a master directory of all assigned DOIs, which may also be used as a Local Handle System by IDF Registration Agencies. However in execution of their DOI related services, IDF Registration Agencies (RAs) may elect to run their own local handle service (LHS) rather than depositing DOIs into the handle service run by the IDF. In order to do this, the RA will need to comply with certain requirements set forth by the IDF to ensure the integrity of the DOI System and provide uniformity across RA resolution services. This section outlines the issues involved in setting up a RA managed local handle service.

8.10.1 Advantages of using a Local Handle Service at an RA

  • Control: RAs ideally wish to have immediate control of business-critical infrastructure components such as DOI registration.
  • Performance: RAs wish to have high performance standards for administration by depositors and resolution by users, with the ability to choose levels of performance standard appropriate to their application.
  • Escrow: IDF needs to have an escrow copy of the DOI deposit data; RAs are willing to provide this but doing so should not impede their business.
  • Business model transition: IDF and RAs wish to move more rapidly to an "operating federation" structure, where the bulk of costs and operational income are borne by the RAs rather than by IDF. The fundamental assumption that "membership fees support development until operating federation can take over" is assumed to be still valid, but we seek to encourage the migration.
  • Ability to fund growth: as RAs grow, they wish to ensure appropriate growth of both LHS server capability. IDF wishes to ensure sufficient funding for the underlying Global system to ensure high standards for all LHS use.

These issues can be addressed by allowing (but not mandating) that RAs themselves operate a Local Handle Service for their DOIs, mirrored to an IDF-operated DOI LHS. The advantages of this are:

  • RAs are in a better position with regard to control, performance etc.
  • IDF receives escrow data, but this process is no longer on the critical path of business performance.
  • Funding of infrastructure growth to accommodate growing use becomes more of an issue for each application and less a bottleneck and funding problem for IDF (though load-intensive applications, increased numbers of DOIs, increased amount of information per DOI or increased frequency of change of DOI would necessitate some corresponding increase in mirror resources).

8.10.2 DOI Handle Service configuration

Currently, the IDF manages one local handle service known as the DOI Service or DOI Directory. This Service consists of multiple servers and contains the DOIs for the several hundred existing DOI prefixes, also known as naming authorities. Each prefix within the handle system is associated with service information, which indicates where handle clients should go to resolve a DOI beginning with that prefix (see Figure 1). All DOI prefixes currently point to the handle service, which is a collection of servers, run by the IDF. Allowing multiple handle services, under the management of multiple RAs, will require repointing the prefixes to the new handle services as well as the introduction of new policies and procedures to maintain the integrity of the DOI system.

Handle System prefixes are not, for most purposes, hierarchical; they work as peers. Thus, there is no need for DOIs that start with, for example, 10.1234/ to necessarily be co-located on the same handle service as DOIs, which start with 10.1234.1/. It is, however, important for all DOIs that start with any single prefix to all be co-located on the same handle service. While it would be theoretically possible to have DOIs starting with any given prefix split across multiple handle services run by multiple RAs, it would be very inefficient since it is the prefix, or naming authority, which is used by handle clients to locate the correct handle service for the DOI in hand. There is no limit to the number of prefixes for which a single handle service may be responsible.

In the case of a prefix holder needing to transfer DOIs in their entirety to another RA's handle service the service information in the prefix record would simply be updated by the administrator of the Global Handle Service (currently CNRI) and all subsequent resolution requests for DOIs starting with that prefix would be directed to the new service. It would be the case of a prefix holder wishing to move only some DOIs starting with a given prefix to another RA handle service that would be difficult. This could be the case, for example, if a publication were sold to another publisher and the old and new publishers used different RAs, each of which ran their own handle service. One approach would be an agreement between the two RAs. Each DOI would be modified to give administrative permission to the new owner but the original owner's RA would have to keep their service running. The new owner could elect to redirect each DOI to a new DOI (in the new service) or modify the DOI data, e.g., the URLs, directly. The best approach, however, would be to avoid the problem by increasing the granularity of naming authorities, e.g., one per imprint or journal rather than one per publisher, decreasing the likelihood of splitting a prefix across services.

Figure 1

Figure 1

8.10.3 RA responsibilities

In order to guarantee a high level of service quality across the entire DOI system, the IDF will impose certain technical requirements on any RA running a separate handle service for the resolution of DOIs. Each separate RA handle service will have to mirror its DOI data back to the IDF's central DOI service, currently managed by CNRI. Every handle service is comprised of one or more sites and each of those sites can be made up of one or more servers. One of the sites is always designated Primary and all administration must go through that site, with the data being mirrored to other sites, called secondaries, within the service. Each RA running their own service will, at a minimum, have to maintain the following configuration: one primary site, a secondary site at the IDF facility, and a third site in the form of a relational database, also at the IDF facility. The second site can be used for resolution but will also be considered escrow data. The third site (the relational database) will not be used for resolution but rather for housekeeping. Using basic SQL queries, the database will be used for generating reports for statistical analysis and billing. Each RA will have to work with IDF staff to make sure their configuration includes these two sites. The computers for these servers will be set up and managed by the IDF. The RA responsibility will primarily be to configure their local handle service to mirror back to the IDF facility appropriately. Please see Figure 2 for an illustration of the configuration. Each RA will also have to appoint a chief technical contact and provide full contact details to the IDF. It will be the duty of the RA to update this information should the contact change.

Figure 2

Figure 2

8.10.4 Prefix allocation and service configuration

Each RA will be allotted a certain number of prefixes. These prefixes will be a block of sequential numbers with no special meaning as mentioned earlier. Each RA will need to understand the basic set up of their prefixes. Each prefix has associated with it service information. This service information is the map/layout of the handle service. The service information is incorporated in a service handle (another level of indirection for ease of administration). Each RA LHS will have its own service handle. The RA will need to know and understand the service handle as it uniquely describes their service. The service handle will be used as the RA "account" number for all correspondence with the IDF and CNRI.

A prefix will have the following values: (Example)

Prefix: 0.NA/10.1201
Data Value:100: HS_ADMIN 0.NA/10:200(CNRI admin that points to another handle)
Data Value:101: HS_ADMIN 0.NA/10.1201:200(RA admin that points to a group within the prefix record -- see next in the list)
Data Value:200:HS_VLIST (Group/list of administrators)
0.NA/10.1201:300
10.1.admin/user1:300
Data Value:300:HS_PUBKEY(Public key for local server administration)
Data Value: 1:HS_SERV 0.SERV/10.1(Service handle)
Service Handle: 0.SERV/10.1 (includes information for each site in a service such as ip address and port numbers). CNRI will create the service handle for each RA LHS.

CNRI will maintain administrative permission for the prefix as well as the RA. This is intended as a backup for administration.

Administration of DOIs will require the use of an admin DOI. Each admin DOI will begin with 10.1.admin/ or similar, differing slightly for each RA's LHS.

It is the responsibility of the RA to inform CNRI and the IDF in the event of any major transaction that could possibly interrupt the mirroring mechanism. It is also the responsibility of the RA to inform CNRI of any configuration changes in their LHS.

The RA is required to enter into a Handle System Technology Commercial Sublicense Agreement with IDF to use a LHS. IDF has licensed rights from the Corporation for National Research Initiatives to technology and software, including copyright in Local Handle System software, U.S. Patent No. 6,135,646, the Handle System® and Global Handle Registry® trademarks, and certain know-how relating to the Handle System Technology, and pursuant to its Handle System Technology Commercial License Agreement with CNRI, IDF is authorized to sublicense limited rights to the Handle System Technology. Please contact IDF for further information.

 

Previous Chapter: 7 International DOI Foundation    Next Chapter: 9 Operating Procedures