Semantic Copyright Management of Media Fragments

Roberto García, David Castellà and Rosa Gil

Universitat de Lleida, Jaume II 69, Lleida, Spain

Keywords: Digital Rights Management, Copyright, Media Fragment, Web Ontology, Semantic Web, Ontology

Engineering.

Abstract: The amount of media in the Web poses many scalability issues and among them copyright management.

This problem becomes even bigger when not just the copyright of pieces of content has to be considered,

but also media fragments. Fragments and the management of their rights, beyond simple access control, are

the centrepiece for media reuse. This can become an enormous market where copyright has to be managed

through the whole value chain. To attain the required level of scalability, it is necessary to provide highly

expressive rights representations that can be connected to media fragments. Ontologies provide enough

expressive power and facilitate the implementation of copyright management solutions that can scale in

such a scenario. The proposed Copyright Ontology is based on Semantic Web technologies, which facilitate

implementations at the Web scale, can reuse existing recommendations for media fragments identifiers and

interoperate with existing standards. To illustrate these benefits, the papers presents a use case where the

ontology is used to enable copyright reasoning on top of DDEX data, the industry standard for information

exchange along media value chains.

1 INTRODUCTION

Digitalisation and the transition to a Web full of

media, where video already amounts more than half

of online consumer traffic

, have introduced new

scalability requirements like bandwidth exigencies,

which technology is rapidly evolving to cope with.

However, there are other limiting factors that are not

scaling so well, especially those that have been

traditionally slow moving like copyright.

As the amount of content made available through

the Web grows, for instance 72 hours of video are

uploaded to YouTube every minute

, the problem of

managing its copyright becomes even more relevant.

Consequently, there is already a need to make rights

management scale to a web of media, as pointed by

recent initiatives like the PLUS Coalition

or the

Linked Content Coalition

. These initiatives, among

other things, propose ways to represent and

Cisco's Visual Networking Index, http://www.cisco.com/en/US/

netsol/ns827/networking_solutions_white_papers_list.html

YouTube Statistics, http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.

html

PLUS Coalition, http://www.useplus.com

Linked Content Coalition, http://www.linkedcontentcoalition.org

communicate rights so they can be automatically

processed in a scalable way.

However, the issues associated with copyright

management at a Web scale become even more

complex when it goes beyond simple access control

and takes into account also content reuse and the

whole content value chain. In this case, rights

representations need to be more sophisticated so

they can capture the full copyright spectrum.

In addition, as reuse is easier when considering

just fragments, spatial or temporal, of existing

content and not full content pieces. Proposed

solutions should scale not just to a Web of media but

also to a Web of media fragments. Fragments,

accompanied by scalable copyright management for

the full value chain, enable a potentially enormous

re-use market.

The main contribution described in this paper is a

Web ontology for the representation and

communication of rights and licensing terms over

media assets in terms of their fragments. The

ontology is based on Semantic Web technologies

and integrates with the W3C Media Fragments

Recommendation (Troncy et al., 2012) to define and

describe spatial and temporal media fragments.

The ontology makes it possible to underpin the

media discovery and usage negotiation process,

230

García R., Castellà D. and Gil R..

Semantic Copyright Management of Media Fragments.

DOI: 10.5220/0004493102300237

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Data Technologies and Applications (DATA-2013), pages 230-237

ISBN: 978-989-8565-67-9

 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

facilitating the automation of functionalities for

rights management. Based on an explicit and

interoperable semantic representation for the

communication of rights, the ontology facilitates

assessing the reusability of a given media asset

fragment and eases bringing content onto this

flourishing market. For instance, by interoperating

with DDEX data

, one of the main standards for

automating the exchange of information along the

digital supply chain.

The rest of the papers is organised as follows.

First, in Section 2, related work is presented together

with the W3C Media Fragments recommendation

that makes it possible to attach licenses to media

fragments. Then, the Copyright Ontology is

presented in Section 3 and a use case showing this

ontology in practice is included in Section 4. Finally,

Section 5 presents the conclusions and the future

work.

2 RELATED WORK

The DRM Watch review on DRM standards

(Rosenblatt, 2008) shows that interoperability is a

key issue for DRM systems. For instance, it arises in

the content distribution scenario when users want to

consume content in any of the devices they own.

Interoperability is also critical in the organisation

scenario, when content flows through organisations

or external content is used in order to derive new

one.

The main response to DRM interoperability

requirements has been the settlement of many

standardisation efforts. The main ones are ISO/IEC

MPEG-21 (Wang et al., 2005) and ODRL (Iannella

2002), and in both cases the main interoperability

facilitation component is a Rights Expression

Language (REL).

The REL is a XML Schema that defines the

grammar of a license modelling language, so it is

based on a syntax formalisation approach. There is

also the MPEG-21 Rights Data Dictionary and a

ODRL Data Dictionary Schema (DD) that captures

the semantics of the terms employed in the REL, but

it does so without defining formal semantics (García

and Delgado, 2005).

This syntax-based approach is also common to

other DRM interoperability efforts and one of main

causes of the proliferation of interoperability

initiatives that cannot interoperate among them, like

in the e-books domain (Rosenblatt, 2009). Despite

DDEX, http://www.ddex.net

the great efforts in place, the complexity of the

and maintain implementations based on this

approach.

The implementers must build them from

specifications that just formalise the grammar of the

language and force the interpretation and manual

implementation of the underlying semantics. This

has been feasible for less complex domains, for

instance when implementing a MPEG-4 player from

the corresponding specification. However, this is

hardly affordable for a more complex and open

domain like copyright, which also requires a great

degree of flexibility.

Moreover, the limited expressivity of the

technical solutions currently employed makes it very

difficult to accommodate copyright law into DRM

systems. Consequently, DRM standards tend to

follow the traditional access control approach. They

concentrate their efforts in the last copyright value

chain step, content consumption, and provide limited

support for the other steps.

In fact, just Internet publishing risks are

considered and the response is to look for more

restrictive and secure mechanism to avoid access

control circumvention. This makes DRM even less

flexible because it ties implementations to

proprietary and closed hardware and software

security mechanisms.

The limited support for copyright law is also a

concern for users and has been criticised, for

instance by the Electronic Frontier Foundation

(Doctorow, 2005). The consequence of this lack is

basically that DRM systems fail to accommodate

rights reserved to the public under national copyright

regimes (Springer and García, 2008).

Consequently, the DRM world remains apart

from the underlying copyright legal framework. As

it has been noted, this is a risk because DRM

systems might then incur into confusing legal

situations. Moreover, it is also a lost opportunity

because, from our point of view, ignoring copyright

law is also ignoring a mechanism to achieve

interoperability. Therefore, DRM must evolve to

It is true that copyright law diverges depending

on local regimes but, as the World Intellectual

Property Organisation

promotes, there is a common

legal base and fruitful efforts towards a greater level

of copyright law worldwide harmonisation.

A new approach is necessary if we want profit

WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization,

http://www.wipo.int

SemanticCopyrightManagementofMediaFragments

231

from the Internet as a content sharing medium. The

existence of this opportunity is clear when we

observe the success of the Creative Commons

initiative, whose objective is to promote content

sharing and reuse thorough innovative copyright and

licensing schemes.

However, despite the success of Creative

Commons licenses, this initiative is not seen as an

alternative to DRM. The main reason is the lack of

flexibility of the available licensing terms. There are

mainly six different Creative Commons licenses, all

of them non-commercial, and just an informal

mechanism for extension and adoption of alternative

licensing schemes, CC+

Moreover, Creative Commons licenses are

available in three formats: a legal version for

lawyers, a more readable version for average users

and as metadata for computers consumption.

However, the Creative Commons metadata is not a

formal representation of the licenses; it just provides

a reduced set of terms for building computer-

oriented licenses. There are three kinds of

permissions (reproduction, distribution and

derivative works), one prohibition (commercial use)

and four requirements (attribution, notice, share

alike and source code).

Consequently, although it is possible to provide

computer support for simple services like content

search, there are no mechanisms for customisation

and advanced computerised support that enable an

Internet-wide copyright-based alternative to DRM

systems.

2.1 Media Fragments

Media fragments are defined by spatial or temporal

boundaries in media assets. For temporal

boundaries, they are based on a start time point and

an end time point (or a duration) that define a

temporal subset of the original media. This kind of

fragments can be also defined for audio content.

Spatial boundaries are specific to visual media

(pictures or videos) and correspond to a subarea in

the original media. The subarea is usually shaped as

a rectangle defined by two points or one point plus a

height and width. The point coordinates and the

sizes are usually defined using pixels or percentages.

To make media fragments scale, its creation can

be automated based on media analysis techniques

capable of determining appropriate spatial and

temporal boundaries in visual media, in which a self-

contained part of the media can be found.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus

Media analysis techniques can be also used to

create semantic media fragment descriptions, which

permit the connection of self-contained media

fragments to the concepts (things, people, locations,

events...) they are perceived as representing.

Semantic descriptions can be also derived from

existing metadata generated in the media production

process and augmented by tools provided within the

media creation phase.

Semantic technology is a means to describe

media in a way that can be understood and processed

by machines. Concepts can be unambiguously

identified by URIs using Semantic Web Linked Data

principles (Hausenblas et al., 2009). Ontologies,

which define permitted terms and how they relate to

one another, are the basis for machine reasoning and

automatic derivation of new knowledge about the

media (e.g. a fragment which shows Angela Merkel

is also showing the German Chancellor).

The W3C Media Fragment URI specification

serves as a media format independent, standardised

means of addressing parts of media resources using

URIs, for instance as shown in Table 1.

The use of the Media Fragment URIs provides a

consistent identification of fragments in all stages of

the media workflow as well as re-use of current tools

and services which support the specification.

Moreover, it becomes trivial to enrich media

fragments descriptions with semantic data based on

Semantic Web technologies, which use URIs as the

way to identify resources.

For instance, the Copyright Ontology, described

in the next section, makes use of fragment URIs and

can attach to them information about their rights

situations, licensing terms, etc.

Table 1: Media Fragment URI example.

http://my.tv/video.ogv#t=60,100&xywh=12,12,42,30

Time

fragment,

from 60s.

to 100s.

Spatial fragment,

rectangle from pixel

x=12, y=12 and width

42px, height 30px

3 THE COPYRIGHT ONTOLOGY

The Copyright Ontology has been engineered

following the Methontology (Gómez-Pérez et al.,

2004) methodology for ontology engineering. It

provides guidance for ontology development process

but also for other support and management

activities. The ontology developing process it

proposes is composed by the following phases:

specification, conceptualisation, formalization,

DATA2013-2ndInternationalConferenceonDataManagementTechnologiesandApplications

232

implementation and maintenance.

The specification phase corresponds to the pre-

development aspects, where the development

requirements are identified. The maintenance phase

is a post-development activity, it is performed once

the ontology is developed. During the

conceptualisation activity, the domain knowledge is

structured as meaningful models. The static part of

the conceptualisation corresponds to the concepts

called continuants or endurants (Gangemi, 2002).

Then it is time to the dynamic part, which

corresponds to the concepts called ocurrents or

perdurants (Gangemi, 2002). The process is inspired

by the way we actually model the dynamic aspects

of the world using our main knowledge

representation tools, i.e. natural language. The

central piece is the verb, which models the dynamic

aspects and constitutes the core of natural language

sentences.

The objective is to apply this same pattern when

modelling the dynamic aspects of an ontology. The

first step is to identify the verb concepts

corresponding to the ocurrents in the domain at

hand, i.e. processes, situations, events, etc. These

concepts will constitute the main part of the model

for the dynamic part, just the same role verbs play in

NL sentences.

This first step just identifies some concepts that

are not enough to build complex knowledge

expressions. In order to do that, the inspiration is

also from how NL sentences work. In NL sentences,

the verb is connected to other sentence constituents,

i.e. participants, in order to build expressions that

model processes, events, situations, etc. This kind of

connection has been studied for long in the NL

domain and a characterisation of them has been

made. These connections are characterised as verb

fillers called case roles or thematic roles (McRae et

al., 1997).

This approach has been extensively used in the

NL research domain but there is little work about

applying case roles for knowledge representation.

There is the FrameNet (Fillmore et al., 2003)

initiative but it is mainly oriented towards

knowledge acquisition from NL sources by semi-

automatic annotation.

Two of the main proposals about the application

of case roles for knowledge representation are those

for Sowa (Sowa, 2004) and Dick (Dick, 1991). From

these sources, a selection of case roles that can be

extensively used to model the dynamic part of

ontologies has been built. The contribution of this

selection is that it is specially tailored to be

integrated as a pattern for ontology engineering.

Table 2 shows this case roles selection, which is

organised in four classes of generic case roles, which

are shown at the top, and six categories, which are

shown at the right. These categories correspond to

verb semantic facets, not disjoint classes of verbs.

Therefore, the same verb concept can present one or

more of these facets. For instance, the play verb can

show the action, temporal and spatial facets in a

particular sentence.

Table 2: Case roles for the NL-oriented pattern.

initiator resource goal essence

Action agent, instrument result, patient,

effector recipient theme

Process agent, matter result, patient,

origin recipient theme

Transfe

agent, instrument, experiencer, theme

origin medium recipient

Spatial origin path destination location

Temporal start duration completion pointInTime

Ambient reason manner aim, condition

consequence

Consequently, once the verb concepts have been

identified, the second step of the proposed pattern

corresponds to the process of determining the case

roles that are necessary to build the dynamic model.

Formal methods can be employed to constraint how

the verb concept and the case roles are related.

Therefore, this pattern allows a great range of model

detail levels. Moreover, it is a very complete set of

case roles. It includes all the case roles identified in

the refereed bibliography and, as it is shown in the

next subsection, it has been used during the

development process no case role lack was detected

and all the verb models could be built with just the

case roles in Table 2.

3.1 Conceptualisation

This section details the Copyright Ontology

conceptualisation activity. This activity is used as an

illustrative example of the pattern presented in the

previous section, which was employed in the

The copyright domain is a complex one and

conceptualising it is a very challenging task. The

conceptualisation process, as it has been shown in

the pattern description, is divided into two phases.

The first one concentrates on the static aspects of the

domain. The static aspects are divided into two

different submodels due to its complexity.

First, there is the creation submodel. This model

is the basis for building the conceptual models of the

rest of the parts. It defines the different forms a

creation can take, which are classified following the

SemanticCopyrightManagementofMediaFragments

233

three main points of view as proposed by many

upper ontologies, e.g. the Suggested Upper Merged

Ontology (Niles and Pease 2001):

 Abstract: Work.

 Object: Manifestation, Fixation and Instance.

 Process: Performance and Communication.

A part from identifying the key concepts in the

creation submodel, it also includes some relations

among them and a set of constraints on how they are

interrelated. More details for this point and the

following steps in the conceptualisation process are

available from

Second, there is the rights submodel, which is

also part of the static part model. The Rights Model

follows the World Intellectual Property Organisation

(WIPO

) recommendations in order to define the

rights hierarchy. The most relevant rights in the

DRM context are economic rights as they are related

to productive and commercial aspects of copyright.

All the specific rights in copyright law are modelled

as concepts. For the economic aspects of copyright

there are the following rights: Reproduction,

Distribution, Public Performance, Fixation,

Communication and Transformation Right.

Each right governs a set of actions, i.e. things

that the actors participating in the copyright life

cycle can perform on the entities in the creation

model. Therefore, it is time to move to the dynamic

aspects of the domain. The model for the dynamic

part is called the Action Model and it is built on the

roots of the two previous ones.

Actions correspond to the primitive actions that

can be performed on the concepts defined in the

creation submodel and which are regulated by the

rights in the rights submodel. For the economic

rights, these are the actions:

 Reproduction Right: reproduce, commonly

speaking copy.

 Distribution Right: distribute. More specifically

sell, rent and lend.

 Public Performance Right: perform; it is

regulated by copyright when it is a public

performance and not a private one.

 Fixation Right: fix, or record.

 Communication Right: communicate when the

subject is an object or retransmit when

communicating a performance or previous

communication, e.g. a re-broadcast. Other related

actions, which depend on the intended audience,

A Semantic Web approach to Digital Rights Management,

http://rhizomik.net/~roberto/thesis

WIPO, http://www.wipo.int

are broadcast or make available.

 Transformation Right: derive. Some

specialisations are adapt or translate.

At this point we have completed the first phase of

the dynamic model part, i.e. the verb concepts have

been identified. They constitute the key elements in

order to build knowledge expressions that represent

the processes, events and situations that occur in the

In order to build this expression and relate the

verb concepts to the other participants, i.e. concepts

in the creation submodel or reused from other

ontologies, it is time to complete the dynamic model

and detail for each verb concept the corresponding

case roles.

Due to space limitations, this section includes

just the detailed model for the Copy action, which is

formally known as Reproduce. However, it is

commonly referred to as Copy and this term is the

one that is going to be used in the ontology in order

to improve its usability. Copies have been

traditionally the basic medium for Work

commercialisation. They are produced from a

Manifestation, from a Fixation of a Performance or

from another Instance. Therefore, these are the

theme of the Copy verb as it is shown in Table 3.

The result is an Instance that is the item

employed for the physical commercialisation of

works, i.e. when a physical item is used as the

vehicle to make the Work arrive to its consumers.

For example, the making of copies of a protected

work is the act performed by a publisher who wishes

to distribute copies of a text-based work to the

public, whether in the form of printed copies or

digital media such as CD-ROMs.

Table 3: Copy case roles.

Case role Range Cardinality

agent

Person

(Natural or Legal)

1..N

theme

Manifestation OR Fixation OR

Instance

result Instance 1

pointInTime e.g. ISO8601 1

location e.g. ISO3166, URL, ... 1

... ... ...

The central part of Figure 1 shows an example

model for expression build using the proposed

pattern as it is applied to the Copy verb concept.

This kind of action patterns are also used to model

licenses. Therefore, two additional verb concepts are

identified and detailed using case roles: Agree and

DATA2013-2ndInternationalConferenceonDataManagementTechnologiesandApplications

234

Disagree. They are the building block of any

license.

Figure 1 shows a license for the Copy action

previously introduced. As it is shown, the condition

case role is used in order to introduce a

compensation for the agent that grants the copy

action, a 3€ transfer from the granted agent.

As it can be observed in the figure, the condition

case role is used to model the obligation deontic

aspect inherent in copyright licenses. The permission

and prohibition deontic aspects also present in

licenses are captured by the Agree and Disagree

verb concepts and their corresponding theme case

roles.

Figure 1: Model for an agreement on a copy action pattern

plus a condition.

The agreement theme corresponds to an implicit

permission, i.e. the theme of an agreement is

permitted. The condition relation corresponds to an

obligation, i.e. in order to fulfil the theme action it is

necessary to satisfy the pattern defined by the

condition property object. Finally, it is also possible

to model prohibitions using the Disagree verb

concept and placing the prohibited action in the

corresponding theme.

As a result of the Copyright Ontology

development process, it has been possible to test the

first objective of the proposed ontology-engineering

pattern. It facilitates the ontology conceptualisation

because it provides a predefined pattern to face the

conceptualisation process and a predefined set of

constructs, the proposed case roles, which facilitate

building a detailed model for the dynamic model

aspects.

A part from the Copyright Ontology

conceptualisation presented in this section, there is

an implementation

based on the Web Ontology

Language (OWL), concretely on the Description

Logic (DL) variant. This implementation can be

used to develop a Semantic DRM System based on

DL reasoning (García and Gil, 2010), as detailed in

the next section.

4 USE CASE

The Copyright Ontology has been applied in a real

use case involving media fragments and existing

DDEX rights data. DDEX data is used in this case as

the way to communicate the rights associated to

assets along the value chain. However, DDEX data

does just model deals, which capture the kind of

actions that can be performed with a particular asset

or fragment in a given territory, time point, etc. They

do not capture the existing copyright agreements that

might make those particular actions legal or not.

Table 4 includes a DDEX example.

Table 4: DDEX data example.

<Deal>

 <DealTerms>



 <CommercialModelType>PayAsYouGoModel

</CommercialModelType>

<Usage>



 <UseType>OnDemandStream</UseType>



 <DistributionChannelType>Internet



 </DistributionChannelType>

</Usage>



 <TerritoryCode>ES</TerritoryCode>



 <TerritoryCode>US</TerritoryCode>

<ValidityPeriod>

<StartDate>2013‐01‐

01</StartDate>

</ValidityPeriod>

 </DealTerms>

</Deal>

Consequently, if there is a dispute because an

asset or fragment is detected under a conflicting use,

it is difficult to determine if there is legal support to

claim compensation. Many different DDEX deals

might be involved and even the agreements related

with the involved assets might have to be manually

checked. This is not feasible if the amount of

disputes to deal with grows.

DDEX has been mapped to the Copyright

Ontology, some of the mappings are shown in

Figure 3, so DDEX data can be converted into

Semantic Web data based on this ontology. This

SemanticCopyrightManagementofMediaFragments

235

Figure 2: Illustration of Copyright Ontology-based reasoning to check if a dispute is supported by existing rights

agreements that defines two deals.

way, many different deals can be combined and

taken into account to decide a dispute. Moreover,

they can be also combined with other sources of

information, like existing agreements once they are

also formalised.

Table 5: DDEX data example modelled using the

<http://media.com/deals/3> owl:Class,

msp:Deal;

 co:start"2013‐01‐01";

 co:aimddex:PayAsYouGoModel;

 owl:intersectionOf(

ddex:OnDemandStream

[aowl:Restriction;

owl:onPropertyco:theme;

owl:hasValue



 <http://my.tv/video.ogv#t=60,100>]

[aowl:Restriction;

  owl:onPropertyco:medium;

owl:someValuesFrom ddex:Internet

]

[aowl:Restriction;

owl:onPropertyco:location

;

owl:someValuesFrom

[a owl:Class;

owl:oneOf (territory:ES

territory:US)]

]).

Once combined, it is possible to use reasoners to

easily implement the process of checking if the

dispute being considered is supported by any of the

existing deals or agreements. To do that, deals are

modelled as classes based on the intersection or

union of restrictions on the deal action and its case

roles, as shown in Table 5.

These classes define the set of actions that are

authorised by a deal. The reasoner can be then used

to check if the dispute, modelled as an instance, is

inside the set defined by the class and consequently

it can be interpreted as supported by the deals and

the agreement under consideration, as illustrated in

Figure 2.

This process is based on the instance

classification service provided by OWL reasoners so

the implementation effor is reduced to retrieving the

classes modelling the deals where the intance has

been classified into and checking if it is part of an

agreement and thus licensed. It is also checked that

the there is no deal the instance has been classified

into that corresponds to a disagreement, the way the

exceptions. More details about copyright reasoning

are available from

Figure 3: Mappings among DDEX and Copyright

Ontology concepts.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

As the amount of media in the Web increases and

more sophisticated uses like reuse are considered at

that scale, a way to represent and automatically

process media rights becomes even more necessary.

This problem becomes even more relevant when not

just the copyright of pieces of content has to be

MediaMixer Community (free membership).

http://community.mediamixer.eu/materials/presentations/copyrigh

t/view

DATA2013-2ndInternationalConferenceonDataManagementTechnologiesandApplications

236

considered, but also media fragments.

To provide a scalable solution, we propose using

highly expressive rights representations that can be

connected to media fragments. This proposal is

materialised into a Copyright Ontology, which is

based on Semantic Web technologies. The ontology

provides a common framework, based on copyright

law, capable of giving support across the whole

media value chain.

Existing data formats can be mapped to this

common framework and then benefit from formal

semantics. First of all, media fragment can be

identified using the W3C Media Fragment URI

recommendation. Moreover, existing data, like

DDEX data used by the industry to communicate

information across the value chain, can also be

mapped to the Copyright Ontology.

Once integrated and formalised, it becomes

easier to implement solutions at the Web scale using

existing Web ontologies reasoners. This approach

has been put into practice in a real use case, where

existing DDEX data is converted into semantic data

and connected to the Copyright Ontology. Then,

reasoners have been used to help decide if a dispute

on a media fragment is supported by the existing

DDEX data and copyright agreement and thus it is

possible to ask for compensation.

Future work now is to bundle this solution into

an existing asset management system like Fedora

Commons

, which is also incorporating semantic

technologies and media fragments capabilities. This

setting would help further evaluation the Copyright

Ontology in real use cases, pushing boundaries to

test its scalability and incorporating other rights data

sources, like rights agreements automatically

processed using Natural Language techniques.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work described in this paper has been partially

supported by the European project MediaMixer

(Community and Networking for the Remixing of

Online Media, FP7-ICT-318101) and the Spanish

project InDAGuS (Infrastructures for Sustainable

Open Government Data with Geospatial Features,

TIN2012-37826-C02).

REFERENCES

Troncy, R., Mannens, E., Pfeiffer, S., Van Deursen, D.

http://fedora-commons.org

2012. Media Fragments URI 1.0 (basic). W3C

Recommendation, 25 September 2012.

http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/

Rosenblatt, B.: 2008 Year in Review: Part 1. DRM Watch,

December 28, 2008. http://www.drmwatch.com/drmte

ch/article.php/3793156

Wang, X., DeMartini, T., Wragg, B., Paramasivam, M.,

Barlas, C.: The MPEG-21 rights expression language

and rights data dictionary. IEEE Transactions on

Multimedia, 7(3), 408-417, 2005.

Iannella, R.: Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL),

Version 1.1, 2002.

García, R., Delgado, J.: An Ontological Approach for the

Management of Rights Data Dictionaries. In Moens,

M., Spyns, P. (Eds.): Legal Knowledge and

Information Systems. IOS Press, Frontiers in Artificial

Intelligence and Applications, 134, 137-146, 2005.

Rosenblatt, B.: 2009 Year in Review: Part 1. DRM Watch,

December 28, 2009. http://copyrightandtechnology.co

m/2009/12/28/2009-year-in-review-part-1/

Doctorow, C.: Critique of NAVSHP (FP6) DRM

Requirements Report. Electronic Frontier Foundation,

2005. http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/NAVSHP

Springer, M., García, R.: Promoting Music Sampling by

Semantic Web-Enhanced DRM Tools. In Grimm, R.;

Hass, B. (Eds.): Virtual Goods: Technology, Economy,

and Legal Aspects. Nova Science Publishers, 2008.

Hausenblas, M., Troncy, R., Bürger, T., Raimond, Y.

(2009) Interlinking Multimedia: How to Apply Linked

Data Principles to Multimedia Fragments. LDOW

Workshop 2009, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 538.

Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O.:

Ontology Engineering. Advanced Information and

Knowledge Processing Series. Springer, 2004.

Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A.,

Schneider, L.: Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE.

In A. Gómez-Pérez, A. & R. Benjamins (Eds.):

Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management,

pp. 166-181, Springer, 2002.

McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., Amyote, L.: Thematic Roles as

Verb-specific Concepts. Language and Cognitive

Processes Journal, 12(2), 137-176, 1997.

Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., Petruck, M. R. L. 2003.

Background to FrameNet. International Journal of

Lexicography, 16(3), 235-250.

Sowa, J. F. 2004. Common Logic Controlled English.

Draft, 24 February 2004. Available from

http://www.jfsowa.com/clce/specs.htm

Dick, J.P. 1991. A conceptual, case-relation

representation of text for intelligent retrieval. PhD

Thesis. University of Toronto, Canada.

Niles, I., Pease, A. 2001. Towards a Standard Upper

Ontology. In C. Welty & B. Smith (Eds.) Proceedings

of the 2nd International Conference on Formal

Ontology in Information Systems, FOIS (pp. 2-9).

Maine, USA.

García, R., Gil, R. (2010). Content value chains modelling

using a copyright ontology. Information Systems

35(4), 483–495.

SemanticCopyrightManagementofMediaFragments

237