athabasca university towards a new framework for...
TRANSCRIPT
ATHABASCA UNIVERSITY
TOWARDS A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR DRM IN MULTIMEDIA
CONTENT DELIVERY FOR M-LEARNING
BY
VLADAN NINCIC
A project submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in INFORMATION SYSTEMS
© Vladan Nincic, 2010
i
DEDICATION
To Vera, the light I hold before me.
ii
ABSTRACT
Current social trends of social networking (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others) have made
the collaboration and sharing a regular process in everyday life. These new online services,
improved mobile networks, and the dissipating differences between the home PCs and mobile
devices have caused the inclusion of interoperability and collaboration into most of the mobile
services. The focus of the research is on the interoperability and ability to share multimedia files
horizontally among the students, with the University as the focal point of the content delivery for
m-learning. The research proposes a new framework that helps in closing the gap that exists
between the m-learning environment and students’ everyday use of mobile devices. This new
framework for Digital Rights Management in the Systems for m-learning enhances the ability to
define and manage the licensed learning multimedia content. Two main issues explored are the
context of different copyright needs and the context of different delivery methods across the
mobile networks. This is based on the belief that once we are able to deliver appropriate content
for each device while simultaneously preventing the abuse of copyrighted works, we will be able
to establish a fully modern m-learning environment.
The major strength of the proposed framework is to position the role of the University in the m-
learning value chain as a policy setter, not implementer. The new framework introduces a critical
new approach that while the University may have a Web portal page for m-learning material, it
should not host or provide the complete delivery service. Instead, the University should let the
content providers handle that role. Recognizing the fact that a single licensing authority is not
obtainable in the near future, we proposed a new object for storing the information needed by a
specific university – “Digital M-Learning Rights Depository“(dMLRiD) consisting of two
databases, Rights and Data Depository with appropriate standard interfaces. While that allows
for a possibility that the multiple University Data Depositories for m-learning may exist, our
proposed framework is flexible enough to allow different implementations.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Professor Fuhua (Oscar) Lin, my project supervisor, for his support in the
process of conducting and completing this research project. In addition, I would like to thank
Prof. Maiga Chang and Prof. Jie-Chi Yang for their insightful comments that helped in shaping
this project.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1
Statement of Purpose ...........................................................................................................1
Research Problem ................................................................................................................2
Research Impact ..................................................................................................................5
Project Scope and Limitations .............................................................................................7
Organization of the Chapters ...............................................................................................9
CHAPTER II ............................................................................................................................ 11
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 11
2.1. Hypothesis Short Review – Introduction ..................................................................... 11
2.2. The Term “Framework “ ............................................................................................. 14
2.3. DRM Architecture ...................................................................................................... 18
2.3.1. Block Diagram of DRM architecture .................................................................... 20
2.3.2. Industry overview ................................................................................................ 20
2.3.3. Academic Initiatives ............................................................................................ 28
2.4. M-Learning – Overview of Issues ............................................................................... 29
2.5. DRM in M-Learning ................................................................................................... 31
2.6. DRM Interoperability Initiatives ................................................................................. 32
2.7. Differentiation of planned research from existing literature ......................................... 34
2.8. Summary .................................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER III ........................................................................................................................... 37
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 37
3.1. Research Methodology ............................................................................................... 38
3.2. Design ........................................................................................................................ 39
3.2.1. DRM Architecture ............................................................................................... 47
3.2.2. Objects Representation......................................................................................... 53
3.3 Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 55
3.3.1. M-Learning Use Cases ......................................................................................... 57
3.4. Instrumentation ........................................................................................................... 59
v
3.5. Summary .................................................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER IV ........................................................................................................................... 66
DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION AND TESTING RESULTS ................................................ 66
4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 66
4.2. POC Analysis ............................................................................................................. 70
4.2.1. Use Case Analysis ............................................................................................... 70
4.2.2. POC Software Configuration ............................................................................... 76
4.2.3. Digital Depository Architecture (dMLRiD) .......................................................... 78
4.2.4. Databases Description .......................................................................................... 81
4.3. POC Report ................................................................................................................ 86
4.3.1 Test Case 01 – Initialization of the Environment ................................................... 87
Test Case 01 Call Flow .................................................................................................. 87
Data Depository information (Datadepodb) ................................................................... 88
XML File Data descriptor .............................................................................................. 89
4.3.2 Test Case 02 – Superdistribution Test Case ........................................................... 91
Test Case 02 Call Flow .................................................................................................. 92
Table structure ............................................................................................................... 93
Example of a License..................................................................................................... 95
4.4. Summary .................................................................................................................... 97
CHAPTER V ............................................................................................................................ 99
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 99
5.1 Implementation Recommendation .............................................................................. 108
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 111
Appendix 1 – POC Demo – SQL Command Example ........................................................ A
Appendix 2 - POC Demo – Database Parameters ................................................................ B
Appendix 3 - POC Demo – Example of a License .............................................................. C
Appendix 4 - POC Demo – Originating Call Flows ............................................................ F
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Basic Description of the pv's Mobile DRM solution ................................................... 23
Table 2 - Microsoft Basic DRM Architecture ............................................................................ 24
Table 3 - OMA DRM Versions 1 and 2 ..................................................................................... 25
Table 4 - POC Software Configuration ...................................................................................... 77
Table 5 – Dublin Core based Metadata Elements ....................................................................... 82
Table 6 - The Creative Commons Profile data dictionary definitions ......................................... 85
Table 7 - DataDepository Content Parameters ........................................................................... 89
Table 8 - Data Structure ............................................................................................................ 94
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Basic M-Learning Use Case with the DRM Architecture........................................... 40
Figure 2 - Basic Client-Side DRM Architecture (example: Audio only) .................................... 42
Figure 3 - An Example of a Dual DRM System Framework ...................................................... 43
Figure 4 - Basic UML Sequence Diagram for a DRM Download .............................................. 44
Figure 5 - UML Sequence Diagram of Superdistribution Use Case ........................................... 46
Figure 6 - DRM Elements Architecture ..................................................................................... 47
Figure 7 - Datastore Element ..................................................................................................... 55
Figure 8 - OMA Data Dictionary schema (OMA DRM REL V2.0, 2004) .................................. 57
Figure 9 - Example One: Inter-Carrier gateway ......................................................................... 60
Figure 10 - Example 2: Online Vault ......................................................................................... 63
Figure 11 - Use Case Architecture Diagram .............................................................................. 71
Figure 12 - Test Case 1 UML Sequence Diagram ...................................................................... 73
Figure 13 - Test Case 2 - Superdistribution without the translation ............................................ 75
Figure 14 -Multi-DRM Framework encompassing a Content Management System ................... 78
Figure 15 – POC Architecture ................................................................................................... 80
Figure 16 - dMLRiD - POC Environment .................................................................................. 81
Figure 17 - ODRL Data Dictionary elements ............................................................................. 83
Figure 18 - Environment Initialization Test Case UML Diagram ............................................... 86
Figure 19 - Superdistribution Test Case UML Diagram ............................................................. 92
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Purpose
Mobile learning or m-learning focuses on learning using different mobile aspects of today
students’ lifestyles and available technologies. It deals with the different learning contexts that
include different media with various levels of learners’ interactivity. In addition, m-learning
deals with the issue of portability when students move the content from a mobile device (their
phone, or a portable player) to a fixed device (PC).
Technological differences among mobile devices, delivery methods or network
characteristic have had a big impact on m-learning, preventing us from reuse of the learning
material. The portability of m-learning material is limited as different devices handle different
types of content differently, thus requiring different methods of use. The availability of different
types of mobile devices, as well as their use by a significant number of young people has brought
about many issues associated with m-learning, limiting the advantages of m-learning in
comparison to the traditional learning methods, namely portability, interactivity and reuse of
learning materials in various educational contexts.
The content developed for m-learning needs to be highly adaptable, convertible and
generic in a sense, which limits its complexity and reduces its learning characteristics. Instead of
trying to develop a learning material in a single form that can be used across different platforms,
we have to recognize the need to develop a framework for the content delivery that will allow us
to define highly customized versions of the content, based on the end device capabilities.
2
The preparation and delivery of the m-learning objects uses the same procedures as the
online learning, with the only difference being in the actual protocols used for the delivery and
the formats of the objects. There is a need to define a better environment for all the possibilities
opened by current technologies, keeping the special focus on the interactivity and compatibility.
As a result, a way to the treat copyrighted material with the same approach has to be found,
enabling the best possible learning experience for students using m-learning environments.
Therefore, any Mobile Learning framework has to be concerned with the multimedia
capabilities and its content management features. As some of the learning objects are under a
copyright, it is important to enable usage of such material in a seamless manner for all students.
Some of those functions already are parts of a mobile content delivery system, while some are
still non-existent in the m-learning environments. Thus, this project aims to advance the
definitions of the needed attributes of the Digital Rights Management elements of the framework.
Research Problem
Three main issues in m-learning, while becoming significant phenomena in the m-
learning community, have not been explored enough yet.
The first issue – m-learning itself, understood earlier only as a subset of e-learning has
grown much closer to e-learning, as the abilities of the mobile devices (online devices used for
m-learning) are getting very similar to those of home PCs (online devices used with e-learning).
The development of multimedia and messaging capabilities of mobile devices has almost erased
the differences between the m-learning and e-learning. Social networking and multimedia
applications have become the standard way of use of the mobile devices and the learning tools
3
need to be constantly developed to reflect that trend. Mobile learning content delivery framework
therefore, needs to reflect the convergence of e-learning and m-learning environments. In
addition to the initial mobile devices – phones, mobile players, today are in use very capable
mobile PCs, with the Pad-type devices having all the capabilities of the PCs but with a lot
smaller footprint. For that reason, we need to take into account the multimedia characteristics of
the e-learning objects and consider all the issues with their delivery.
The second important issue is the development of interactivity capabilities. The learning
objects need to reflect the trends that social networks have brought about, which include more
interactive content, as well as the ability to communicate both vertically (e.g. teacher-student-
teacher), and horizontally (student-student). Collaboration, then, needs to be included in the m-
learning environment, which raises a problem of delivery that highlights the difference between
the e-learning (online, over Web content delivery) and m-learning (delivery over multiple
networks). While Web has a standardized structure that offers the unified set of transport
mechanisms, the mobile networks depend on the operators who provide the service, and
therefore, delivery mechanisms may (and often do) differ. That difference could be overcome in
case where only a vertical content delivery (teacher-student-teacher) is used, assuming the
teacher is setting the content available for delivery over Web, and all the mobile operators’
networks can handle the Web content delivery from a known source. That would still involve
communication with all the networks, as the University m-learning content delivery environment
will have to be enabled by all the operators.
The problem arises when m-learning requires collaboration and the need to deliver
content between the students (horizontal content delivery), which often use different networks.
4
For example, a student that is on the TELUS network needs to send a collaborative multimedia
object to a student on Bell Mobility network. That is currently not possible, as no standardized
ways for this process, regarding the multimedia content exists. A possible solution would involve
developing the University content delivery system or at least, a staging area that would be
integrated with all mobile operators, enabling fair access abilities for all the students. That will
not resolve the horizontal content delivery, however, when the copyrighted material is used. In
addition, that solution would bring about another set of questions, such as who would setup,
integrate, and maintain the system as well as who would pay for the costs of running it? Would
operators allow an independent delivery system on their networks? Instead, by looking directly at
the problem such as lack of interoperability, this research aims to introduce a new approach in
the m-learning environment that will allow more flexibility in answering to those questions.
The third issue that has to be addressed is the use of the copyrighted material in the
learning environment. Even with the issue of the multimedia content delivery resolved, there are
still limitations in the copyright protection that different operators would offer. This issue is even
more prominent considering the multimedia nature of the content and various usage rights
related to the content. The required collaboration in m-learning pushes the issue further, as the
multimedia content delivery across a mobile network is not possible yet within the current setup.
The main way that operators protect and enforce the content copyrights currently is by
using the Digital Rights Management (DRM) solutions. Those solutions differ among operators,
based on the available business models and their individual business strategies. In order to use
m-learning by utilizing available technology and social trends, there is a need to explore the
5
ways to connect the operators with the University and develop a framework that will enable use
of the copyrighted material as learning objects within the m-learning environments.
Interoperability and collaboration are, therefore, the main issues that this research
addresses.
Research Impact
The previous research done in both the industry and academy had shown a lack of an
encompassing element that would take into account the specific nature of an m-learning
environment – the possible use of multiple mobile networks by students and teachers. In that
sense, a new approach was needed in an interoperable DRM framework when used in the m-
learning environment.
Various attempts have been made to produce an interoperable DRM. Most of them are
still suffering from unresolved license rights. One of the examples is the Marlin initiative, where
even after the North American beta tests by SyncTV were very successful (testing its
subscription on-demand download service for television shows in DVD or better quality), no
new development in that area happened, leading the SyncTV to became inactive now for over a
year. Other Marlin-based DRM deployment happened with IPTV trial in Japan involving several
vendors, all of them members of Marlin consortium. The mobile unit of Telefonica (mobile
operator in Spain) has also executed the tests of Marlin-based DRM solution for their mobile
content, as well as Verimatrix of their new MultiRights DRM IPTV platform. The common
6
problem for all these attempts was a lack of the proper framework for the development, causing
the problems with the acceptance of the new environment.
This research is based on the preliminary overviews of those tests done within the
industry by multiple operators and multi DRM systems as well as by the academia.
Instead of providing a new proprietary solution that would attempt to propose another
"unified way" for dealing with all the issues surrounding the digital media, the aim of this
research is to propose the redesign of the mobile content delivery for m-learning framework. As
a result, the proposed framework will include new elements, with the important focus being on
the needed call flows that describe relevant use cases. That way, the interfaces between the
logical elements that comprise a framework will have to be reexamined as well. The project will
achieve its goal if it provides a new ground for the research that needs to constantly follow
changes in m-learning, which in turn reflect the changes in technology and society.
This research offers a new framework as a possible solution for the issues of
interoperability and collaboration in m-learning including use of the copyright-protected content.
Such a framework will offer an m-learning environment that:
• Is Copyright-aware and capable of handling various copyright schemes;
• Enables collaboration (horizontal content delivery) by transferring the information of
the content copyrights with the content;
• Frees schools from creating the rules for content delivery and letting the operators
keep the full control of the content delivery over their network.
7
With the proposed framework, a possible solution will include a new regulatory element,
the Digital M-Learning Rights Depository (dMLRiD), with following functions:
1. It contains a rights depository database for the m-learning objects for a learning
institution (generalized to include any open secured database);
2. It contains open standard and text based interfaces toward the content providers
(including student, any open and proprietary sources), where the m-learning content delivery call
flow includes a submission of the specific content rights into the Depository;
3. It uses the existing interoperability measures between different right-expression
languages to translate the licenses into the rights for a protected object.
Project Scope and Limitations
The project research begins with an argument that a new framework would enhance the
interoperability by recognizing the existing facts (industry needs, proprietary solutions, multiple
standards). As a result, the goal of this project is to design a framework that would allow for
the existence of various new elements, some of them proprietary, with the proper call flows
and architecture.
Therefore, it is the intention of the project to present a detailed research of the theoretical
aspect of existing DRM frameworks, build a simulation Proof of Concept that will help support
the proposed call flows that better define the multi-DRM nature of the digital content delivery
systems in the context of m-learning.
8
The full, comprehensive tests of the proposed framework are out of the scope for this
project because of needed cooperation of the multiple organizations (in Canada, all mobile
operators, maybe even a university network?). Instead, we use Proof of Concept (POC) demo
tests that include the call flows between the new elements of the framework with the
environment. There is no need for us to include mobile content delivery in the tests, as the
framework is not concerned with the delivery process, but, instead, leaves the delivery to the
operators’ infrastructure. That is another new point that the proposed framework is offering, just
a seamless integration with the existing objects without enforcing major changes in the delivery
process to accommodate the need for a standardized solution. In our POC, we look at the
communication between the dMLRiD and the according elements (Licensing Servers, Content
Management platforms).
The design of the New Framework for DRM in Multimedia Content Delivery for m-
learning including the Digital M-Learning Rights Depository element (dMLRiD) is presented by
the following descriptors:
• Framework architecture block diagram;
• UML sequence diagrams and Call Flows;
• Protocol dependencies;
• Interface definitions;
• Rights definitions, given by XML description files.
By creating a detailed UML diagram for the multi-DRM use case scenario to explore in
detail, the project is defining the way the Content Rights are handled during the license-acquiring
period within the process of the content delivery for multiple devices.
9
Complete call-flow diagrams will be created to define the proposed framework. The
design of the new framework will be assisted with the appropriate rights definitions, given as
XML file descriptive files.
Organization of the Chapters
Chapter II contains the background information and provides the review of supporting
literature. The supporting literature analysis includes a review of the activities of several industry
associations, one of them being Marlin developer group (started by Intertrust, Sony, Philips,
Matsushita, and Samsung). Marlin represents one of the approaches to DRM taken by the leaders
in the consumer electronics industry. The idea of Marlin is to create a DRM environment that
interoperates among devices from different vendors -- in this case, Sony, Philips, Samsung, and
Panasonic (Matsushita). In addition, Chapter II contains a review of the activities of OMA (Open
Mobile Alliance), an association of mobile telecommunication and multimedia companies. The
first interoperable DRM framework was defined by OMA and it is widely used for a “low-fi”
content, ringtones and wallpapers. OMA has defined the OMA 2 DRM, with the intention to
provide more secured way to deliver multimedia content, including video and audio and enable
advanced usage models. The current deployment of such systems however, is still stalled by
mentioned license rights.
Chapter III describes the methodology of the research together with the full architecture
description of the used environment, data gathering mechanisms and dependencies.
The analysis of the typical m-learning Use Case Scenario is given as well, describing the
behavior of the environment when protected content is available for multiple devices and with
10
different models of use. That will also be the base for the proof of concept (POC) tests. POC will
help simulate multiple networks on multiple devices, with different rights, especially the issue of
open content and content sharing.
In order to support the proposed solution, Chapter IV presents the results and the
accompanied analysis by following:
• Proof of Concept analysis using the m-learning use case with a complete call flow
analysis, and interface specification;
• A simulation prototype, built in the Linux and Windows XP environments using
mySQL simple database for a Depository, with the interfaces specification in abstract
mode. It uses the Privacy policy profile from XACML v2.0;
• Set of XML-based file descriptors, used in an alignment with the full URL diagram
showing the complete call flow in the proposed environment – defining that way the
software system architecture for the proposed framework.
Chapter V contains the discussions and recommendations. The proposed new framework
is discussed, with the specific interest in fulfilling the ever-growing needs of m-learning. In
addition, the further research will be discussed, as the subject of m-learning will be one of the
most interesting research subjects in the mobile and Internet industry, considering the impact of
the current changes in mobile technology.
The term definitions, acronyms tables and the code, additional diagrams and the full use
case run will be given in the Appendices as an addendum to the paper.
11
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Hypothesis Short Review – Introduction
One of the main differences between m-learning and e-learning environments resides in
the lack of availability of the proper learning material for the m-learning. The reason for this lies
in that different technological characteristics of end devices in m-learning (mobile phones,
mobile players) prevent the reuse of the learning material. Therefore, it is important to highlight
that the content developed for m-learning needs to be highly adaptable, convertible and generic
as possible, which limits the complexity and capabilities of learning material. In the best case,
appropriate versions of the content for a multitude of devices will exist. At the same time, the
mobile content delivery platform needs to be highly adaptable to a constant flow of new, more
capable mobile devices.
As Van Tassel notes, “[t]he adaption of the digital technologies to acquire and to deliver
content in multiple formats and for multiple platforms is progressing rapidly throughout most
parts of the industry” (Van Tassel, 2006). The result is that more interactivity and capability is
required to make changes in the content intended for the end users, in our case, the students.
The preparation and delivery of the m-learning objects follows the same procedures as in
the online learning, with the only difference being in the actual protocols used for the delivery
and formats of the objects. There have been many activities in academic research with the goal
of defining the environment for the online learning. One of them was The COLIS Project
12
(Collaborative Online Learning and Information Services), an initiative based on a consortium of
five Australian universities (Macquarie, Newcastle, Tasmania, UNE, and USQ) and five e-
learning vendors (Computer Associates, Fretwell Downing, IPR Systems, WebCT and
WebMCQ) aimed to build a broad, interoperable, standards-based e-learning environment for the
future. The project demonstrated the need to incorporate Digital Rights Management (DRM)
with Learning Objects.
Dalziel argues, “COLIS represents one of the first applications of an open, freely
available digital rights expression language to Learning Objects. In practical terms, this
uncovered a number of significant challenges, such as the need for Single-Sign-On (i.e., access
and identity management) throughout the environment in order to be able to implement the
license requirements of an ODRL agreement at all stages of the lifecycle of creation, trading,
downloading, arranging and student use of Learning Objects. One of the outcomes of the COLIS
project as a result of this component of work is a number of "education market specific" ODRL
license templates, covering issues such as volume and site licenses for Learning Objects in
educational settings.” (Dalziel, 2002)
The ODRL (Open Digital Rights Language) is an XML-based language for the Digital
Rights Management (DRM) and the standardization of expressing rights information over
content (ODRL, 2002). Ideally, the interoperability problem would not exist if there was a
standard Right Expression Language (REL). The main issue with the standardization within the
mobile industry is a lack of business interest, as the applications and services are not available
for all operators at the same time, and those with the new services want to assure their business
advantage either by not sharing or by using open standards in them. Some of the examples are
13
Microsoft with Windows Media DRM, Apple with their iTunes with proprietary DRM, and SDC
with their Java Mobile DRM, all of them highly successful companies in the mobile services
industry.
The content metadata is very important in the context of m-learning because of built-in
portability requirements from the learning material. As Tiong argues, there is a need “for an
infrastructure that supports the generation and sharing of metadata and effective meta-analysis of
learning objects to support consistent pedagogy in mobile learning. Thus a framework that
includes the pedagogy factor is necessary.” (Tiong, 2006)
Our research project looks into the technical part of an m-learning system that deals with
the content rights management. The project does not aims to create a new Digital Rights
Management (DRM) or an m-learning system, or to build a new REL, rather its goal is to better
define the issues that surround the delivery mechanisms for different devices in m-learning. Two
main issues that we explore are the context of different copyright needs and delivery across the
mobile networks, to offer the same experience to all students and actors in m-learning. Once we
are able to deliver appropriate content for each device and simultaneously prevent the abuse of
copyrighted works, we will be able to establish a fully modern m-learning environment.
The interfaces between various elements of the m-learning environment are important
part of a framework that intends to enable functioning of a multi-DRM system capable of
delivering different learning multimedia content. As there no standard exists today related to the
copyright in the mobile world, there is no single interface capable of connecting different content
delivery systems.
14
2.2. The Term “Framework “
A possible solution of the problem will tackle the issue of the Rights Definition block
within the Content Delivery environment, dealing with the new level of abstraction we need in
order to handle the multi-DRM content relevant to the m-learning digital material. Within the
Rights Definition block, we look into connecting the dependencies of the Rights Definitions,
Offer Management, Content Access and License Creation elements. The new enhanced
framework will therefore include the enhanced functionalities of the several elements within the
m-learning DRM framework, changing the communication between the parts.
To present fully the Content Delivery architecture, the term “framework” will be used in
its meaning of the software framework, as the collection of descriptions that defines a potential
solution that can be produced and implemented based on that set of descriptors. Defining the
term framework, Pree (2000) comments that we need to explore the building blocks that will
predefine the overall architecture of the system, while to produce the final application would
mean to “adjust building blocks to specific needs by overriding some methods in subclasses” (pg.
3).
Our proposed framework is related directly to mobile content delivery, as Markiewicz
and Lucena (2001) argue that the frameworks are “application generators that are directly related
to a specific domain, i.e., a family of related problems” (pg. 1). In this project, m-learning
represents our domain, while the mobile content delivery with the copyright assurance is the
specific environment with most of the elements already defined. Pree (2000) argues that
frameworks are best when used for “domains where numerous similar applications are built from
15
scratch again and again. A framework defines a high-level language with which applications
within a domain are created through specialization “(pg. 4)
In looking at our m-learning content delivery framework that includes DRM handling, we
can notice that some elements require more flexibility. The constant development of new
multimedia formats, and codecs, alongside with the new types of content and devices, create a
changeable environment for each element related to the content handling, such as data storage,
packagers, interfaces and license generators. In that sense, the proposed framework will indicate
its hot spots, which will be the points of its flexibility. As Riehle (2000) explains, “[h]ot spots are
abstract classes or methods that must be implemented. Frameworks are not executable. To
generate an executable, one must instantiate the framework by implementing application specific
code for each hot spot.”(Riehle, 2000)
Discussing the e-learning frameworks, Tiong (2006) states that per LTSA, “in general,
the purpose of an e-learning framework is to understand the concept of a system, its components,
and its interactions within itself and to external systems and users” (pg. 23). In other words, a
framework would normally not address specific details of implementation technologies such as
the platform, programming languages, protocols, authoring tools, or operating systems necessary
to implement the e-learning system as discussed by IEEE’s Learning Technology Standards
Committee and their Systems Architecture (LTSA, 2001).
Our intention is to propose the standardized applications for a specific domain,
combining the existing applications with a new functionality. Pree (1995) maintains that some
aspects of the applications could be difficult to anticipate. “These parts of an application
framework have to be generic so that they can easily be adapted to specific needs. The difficulty
16
of ‘good’ object-oriented design is to identify the hot spots of an application framework, i.e.,
those aspects of an application domain that have to be kept flexible.” (pg. 3)
There have been earlier attempts to define a framework that would enable multiple DRM
systems to be used in the process of the content delivery. For example, in 2004 and 2005, the
project “Distributed DRM System at University of Cape Town” by Alapan Arnab and Andrew
C.M. Hutchison defined a framework that dealt with the issues of a single device type. The issue
with their project was that it was not successful in recognizing the need for different DRM
technologies that are necessary to handle multitude of learning objects and usage devices.
(Arnab& Hutchison, 2005)
In addition, there are many initiatives developed in academic research aimed to define a
technical learning framework (MIT Open Knowledge Initiative, the UK e-University, Sun
Microsystems E-Learning Framework, the Carnegie-Mellon Learning Systems Architecture
Laboratory, the JISC Managed Learning Environment program). All of them considered the
framework as a set of services rather then a full implementation specification. For example, JISC
Managed Learning Environment program (at http://www.jisc.ac.uk) identifies e-learning
frameworks using the abstraction of service layers, identifying four layers of the framework:
User Agents
• Function: Interact with users.
• Examples: portals, learning delivery systems, authoring tools, administration
interfaces.
• Size: They can be small and focused or span many processes to provide a coherent
workflow.
17
Application Services
• Function: Provide functionality required by user agents, such as retrieving learner
information, or storing content in a repository.
Key Requirements:
• Using a standard interface, it exposes its functionality for reuse by any number of
user agents or other application services.
Common Services
• Function: Provide lower-level functionality
• Examples: Authentication and authorization services
Infrastructure
• The underlying network, storage, and processing capability provided for an
implementation. (Wilson et all, 2004)
In such a model of services, DRM is understood as a Common Service with a specific
role of the enforcement of the copyrights, a limiting role that works in the same layer as
authentication or authorization services.
Working with frameworks provides several advantages. Namely, one of them is the fact
of reusing the architecture design that amounts to standardization of the application structure, as
adapting a framework to produce specific applications implies a significant reduction in the size
of the source code that has to be written by the application programmer. Mature frameworks
allow a reduction of up to 90% (Weinand et al., 1989; Fayad et al., 1999a, b, c) compared to
software written with the support of a conventional function library. Moreover, framework-
18
centered software development is not restricted to specific domains, such as graphic user
interfaces (GUIs).
On the other side, the costs of developing a framework could be significantly higher than
the costs of developing a specific application. If similar applications already exist, they have to
be studied carefully to come up with an appropriate generic semi-finished system – the
framework for the particular domain. Adaptations of the resulting framework lead to an iterative
redesign. Thus, frameworks represent a long-term investment that pays off when similar
applications are developed repeatedly in a given domain.
Finally, it has to be mentioned that the framework development and reuse is currently at
odds with the project culture that tries to optimize the development of specific software solutions
as opposed to generic ones. Again, the main reason being the need for business advantages as the
industry is developing new technologies.
2.3. DRM Architecture
According to US-based National Institute for Standards and Technology, “DRM is a
system of IT components and services along with corresponding law, policies and business
models which strive to distribute and control intellectual property and its rights. Product
authenticity, user charges, terms-of-use and expiration of rights are typical concerns of DRM.
“(NIST, 2003)
19
In exploring the digital content delivery, we need to consider the ways to secure that the
rights of the content authors, owners and other members of the delivery chain are respected.
From that perspective, “Digital Rights Management refers to controlling and managing rights to
digital intellectual property” (Rosenblatt, Trippe and Mooney, 2002).
While the description of DRM has to include the intellectual property issues, different
countries may have different perspectives on legal protection, technological measures and new
business models. Many recognize that issue and there are several research projects by Law
departments of various universities in EU and US trying to define a common approach. (Lucchi,
2006).
To represent the intellectual and usage rights, a DRM solution needs to describe the
rights using a defined set of rules - Digital Right Expression Languages (DREL). DRELs deal
with the description of the rights and are of utter importance for interoperability activities. For
example, Iannella (2001) shows one possible description model. Usage permissions are defined
by the set of attributes and related to the content via:
• Constrains;
• Obligations and
• Right Holders.
By defining the attributes, we allow for creation of a framework that will represent any
model of usage, with the idea to offer a flexible solution. Any new set of services or an
application should belong to one of those attributes, which makes possible to define an
appropriate framework.
20
2.3.1. Block Diagram of DRM architecture
To represent the architecture of a Digital Rights Management system, we have to group
similar or related tasks and attributes. Any DRM system should contain similar set of properties,
and the three areas of Intellectual Property (IP) Asset are
• Creation;
• Management, and
• Usage.
It is important to notice that Iannella does not include the license when there is no
payment (Iannella, 2001). Today, there are different types of licenses, for example, Creative
Common licenses, where the free usage of the content is allowed, as long as the license terms are
respected. That can be understood as another reason to be prepared for constant flux of changes
in technology resulting in the need for a more flexible treatment of DRM framework elements.
2.3.2. Industry overview
The patented technology around DRM could be divided into three camps: DRM
implemented completely by software, by hardware, and the hybrid combinations.
Certainly, the most secure DRM would be one implemented by hardware. However, there
is a direct relationship with respect to cost and security, as higher security means higher costs,
less interoperability, longer development cycles, potentially shorter shelf life, and limited
ongoing flexibility.
21
The DRM solutions implemented by software generally are less secure; however, they
boast a much shorter development cycle, are field upgradeable, they maintain the greatest
possible flexibility and interoperability, and cost a fraction of the solutions involving hardware.
The most difficult issue with about developing a hardware based DRM is that it requires
flexibility in supporting different types of rights that content owners want to enforce and
different ways service providers could want to use it. For example, a content owner may allow
streaming of the content, while service providers may forbid streaming in the network under
certain conditions. The system with more of the functionality imprinted on the chip will be less
flexible or open to new uses, new business models, or new copyright models.
The combination of the software and hardware DRM solutions are the dominant form of
DRM used today, while only specialized groups of vendors use the hardware-only based DRM.
Most often, DRM solutions assure secure usage of the content based on the combination of the
user and the device’s identity, using a combination of the encryption methods that use that
information for different securing mechanisms (public key, private key, userID).
It is interesting to note another recent trend that caused most of the industry in the US to
avoid using the term “DRM” for the copyright enforcing systems, and choose various other
terms instead, like copyright technologies, content access technologies and similar. The reason is
a lot of bad publicity surrounding some poor DRM technological choices. This project uses the
term DRM in the wider meaning, not just as an enforcer of the usage models, but more
importantly, an assurance agent that the copyrights are respected and the fair use of the content is
enabled.
22
There are several different approaches to the DRM issue in the mobile industry. This
section contains a brief overview of the main contenders in the mobile DRM space, such as
PacketVideo (and former SDC), Microsoft, Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), Intertrust (owned by
Sony and Philips) and Apple. All of them are based on the server-client architecture.
PacketVideo (pv, Available online at http://www.packetvideo.com/) Java DRM is a
technology based on mobile code architecture (developed by Secure Digital Container, SDC,
later acquired by pv). This architecture allows the system server side to package content together
with code in a "container". This object works as a transport unit for content, software and code.
The client resides within the container and the content is interpreted by the Java Virtual Machine
on the device.
It important to note that even the initial solution contained the interoperability built-in,
based on different types of devices that can have the proper client installed. The only
requirement is a Java environment. In addition, there are multiple ways to deliver the content,
implying that the different content type is supported (streaming, download). The functionality is
secured by the exchange of the public key between the server and the client side.
Table 1 below contains the basic description of main points of the pv’s DRM solution.
Another interesting point with pv’s DRM solution is the domain (or group) license, as it is of
great interest for m-learning. Domain license supports the situation in which a group of devices
is allowed to use the same content with the single license. That way, sharing of a learning
material among a specified group of people becomes possible (for instance, university course
participants). Of course, as all other industry players, PacketVideo is working on an
23
interoperable solution that supports multiple devices and ways of delivery with multiple rights
models.
Table 1 - Basic Description of the pv's Mobile DRM solution
Microsoft (online at http://www.microsoft.com) has produced several different solutions
and application interfaces with the intention to cover various delivery methods and a plentitude
of end-devices. Most of the solutions are based on the Intertrust patents, as Microsoft has taken a
comprehensive license to the Intertrust patent portfolio. Recently, Microsoft is also testing the
Marlin environment as a way to offer interoperability. It is very important to note that all
Microsoft DRM-related solutions are implemented for Microsoft media files, and therefore, do
not offer complete interoperability. In other words, if a device does not have a Microsoft player,
the content cannot be used on it, as mentioned by Melendez-Juarbe (2009).
Microsoft has several Windows Media DRM architectures, currently under the name of
Content Access Technology, most notably Microsoft PlayReady and Silverlight DRM.
24
While a brief overview of Microsoft Windows Media DRM architecture is given by
Table 2, it is important to note that Microsoft, as all other companies in this field (except for
Apple) has introduced the concept of the domain, or a group license, to enable the definition of
the “free zones”, in accordance with the Marlin initiative. In addition, Microsoft Playready DRM
technology supports Windows Media Audio, AAC and AAC+ and HE-AAC, Windows Media
Video and H.264.
Table 2 - Microsoft Basic DRM Architecture
Open Mobile Alliance (OMA, http://www.openmobilealliance.org/) is a standards body
with the mission to develop open standards for the mobile telecommunication industry, as well
as provide interoperable service enablers. OMA was created in 2002 as a combination of several
industry forums: the WAP Forum, the SyncML Initiative, the Mobile Wireless Internet Forum,
the Location Interoperability Forum, the Wireless Village, and the Mobile Games
Interoperability Forum. OMA is supported by the companies from the entire telecommunication
field, mobile device manufacturers (e.g. Nokia, LG, Samsung, Motorola, Sony, Siemens), mobile
system manufacturers (e.g. Ericsson, Siemens, Openwave), operators (e.g. Vodafone, O2,
Cingular, Deutsche Telekom, Orange), and IT companies (e.g. Microsoft, IBM, Sun).
25
The first “standard” DRM, OMA DRM 1 has been deployed in many telecom mobile
operators worldwide, enabling a secure delivery of “lo-fi” content (ringtones, wallpapers). With
the proper support from the device manufacturers, an operator could be confident that a device
will support an OMA standard, witch helped with the deployments. OMA DRM v2 has added
encryption into the delivery, making it more secured and appropriate for complex multimedia
content (music, video). In addition, the concept of the domain license has been added, enabling
the use of a single content on a multiple devices. The basic characteristics are shown in the Table
3 below:
Table 3 - OMA DRM Versions 1 and 2
As an initiative to support open standards, OMA uses ODRL as the right expression
language to define the rights within the OMA DRM 2. That is important for any interoperable
DRM solutions as an open standard is always more preferred to a proprietary one.
It is important to note that there are issues with the intellectual property rights within
some open standards preventing the OMA 2 DRM to become a “real” standard,. For example,
MPEG Licensing Authority is trying to impose the levies on the use of some parts of the OMA 2
DRM. The active members of the MPEG LA pools are Intertrust and its two parents Sony and
Philips, plus ContentGuard, now held by Microsoft, Time Warner and Thomson, with the final
26
patent pool member being Matsushita. The Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE,
online at http://www.decellc.com/), latest initiative by inter-industry set of companies includes
OMA DRM 2 as one of the proposed standards.
Intertrust (online at http://www.intertrust.com/), a company owned by Sony and Philips
and few smaller companies, is the owner of the most of the Intellectual Property related to the
Rights Languages and mobile DRM. They are involved in the earlier mentioned Marlin
initiative and the Marlin Developer Community (MDC) that aims to provide interoperability and
reuse of the standards (http://www.marlin-community.com/), as well as with DECE, an initiative
by several industries involved with digital entertainment.
There are several deployments of Marlin, most significant one being Sony that uses
Marlin in the PlayStation Network. The DRM solution allows users of the video download
service to share purchased or rented content on their PS3 and PSP systems. Marlin is also the
basis of the national IPTV standard in Japan and has been deployed by AcTVila, a web-based
TV portal that was launched in 2007, created by partners Hitachi, Panasonic, Sharp, Sony, and
Toshiba. It is interesting to note that AcTVila has recently announced its broadcast in 3D.
The main issue with Marlin initiative is that it is based on the Intellectual Property of a
single entity – Intertrust. This again brings forward the old issue of the standards within the
telecom industry, namely, too many standards exist. As a result, it is difficult to assume that all
manufacturers of content delivery platforms and mobile devices would support Marlin. Again,
we can see the importance of developing a flexible DRM framework that will eliminate the need
for imposing one single standard. Instead, such a framework will enable interoperability between
the different solutions, especially when used across different networks.
27
Another initiative in the industry is the mentioned Digital Entertainment Content
Ecosystem (DECE), a digital entertainment industry attempt to set open technical standards for
delivering multimedia content online. The members of the group are all major Hollywood
studios except Disney, all major consumer electronics and cable set-top manufacturers, a few top
PC and mobile-phone companies. Together, they defined a version of H.264 as a common file
format and plan to use five DRM technologies (from Adobe, Intertrust, Microsoft and Widevine,
and OMA 2 DRM). It is interesting to note the absence of Apple, as Apple does not allow use of
their DRM in any non-Apple devices.
Apple (online at http://www.apple.com/), is another company that aims to control the full
vertical aspect of the mobile content delivery. Not only that Apple has a proprietary DRM
system, but Apple also controls the multimedia delivery through their Web portal – iTunes, and
manufactured devices – iPhones, iPods, and iPads. For that reason, Apple does not like to get
involved in the interoperability issues. It is clearly a very important issue for Apple, as illustrated
by examples of several EU countries that had requested from Apple to provide a certain level of
interoperability from their iTunes portal (Valimaki and Oksanen, 2006). After winning the initial
trials, Apple reacted by offering DRM-free content, rather than providing any licensing
information.
This lack of interoperability is a very significant issue for m-learning community, as it
implies that any Apple device will not be able to use any content that has a non-Apple DRM
protection. As Apple devices have been very much used by student population, it would be
important that any m-learning solution support Apple devices, which adds another reason for a
flexible DRM framework, as proposed by this research.
28
It is also important to emphasize that mobile devices are getting more complex and more
multimedia capable, and that some of the platforms are becoming very close to what is viewed as
a standard home PC. Thus, smartphones should be considered as a significant factor in any m-
learning environment. In addition, the smartphones are gaining more support (Symbian platform
based devices, iPhone OS, RIM’s BlackBerry), as shown by recent statistics from research
company Gartner (2010) and an article by Ricknas (2010). The situation in Canada and US is
similar to worldwide trends, with significantly more impact from Apple iPhone.
It is also important to note that RIM devices are also proprietary systems, while Android
and Symbian are open systems.
2.3.3. Academic Initiatives
Different initiatives currently exist within the academic community. Most of them could
be grouped around various standardization activities, mainly around the Digital Rights
Expression Languages. For example, a research by Xavier Maroñas, Eva Rodríguez, and Jaime
Delgado from Polytechnic University of Catalonia deals with the architecture for the
interoperability between different Rights Expression Languages (RELs), based on XACML. The
initiative implies the development of a DRM system based on XACML, in attempt to formalize
mappings between different RELs and XACML. The main idea developed here is to have a
system that will accept any request from any DRM REL format, process the request converting
that document in the corresponding XACML policy, and pass it to the system to complete the
authorization process (Maronas et all, 2009).
Another initiative is The Learning Object Repository Network Project (LORN) in
Australia, which is building the capacity of the Australian VET system (The Australian
29
vocational education and training system). The LORN goal is to share teaching and learning
resources that support flexible delivery, providing a foundation for sharing resources within the
VET system, and establishing and embedding agreed principles in the design and development of
e-learning resources and resource repositories. One of the main goals of LORN is to “facilitate
further advances in digital rights management (DRM) as part of a staged approach to embedding
more rigorous DRM processes” (Chowdhury, 2007).
Several academic initiatives have dealt with the questions of interoperability (Taban,
Cardenas and Gligor, 2006), or defining the new, open standards for RELs, layers (Diehl, 2008)
or the complete delivery systems (Jamkhedkar, Heileman, 2009).
2.4. M-Learning – Overview of Issues
Modern learning materials use the multimedia features of mobile devices and stationary
devices, like PCs, that can also be used in this context, to deliver advanced learning units. Early
online learning technologies had used only written articles, texts. Today, most of the devices can
handle multimedia content, such as PCs, mobile handsets, PDAs, mp3 players, thus bringing
forward several new issues in the context of m-learning:
• How to deliver appropriate content to an end device?
• How to differentiate from different copyrights or handle intellectual property of
the learning material?
• How to make easier the transition and portability when the content is handled
differently on different devices?
30
Based on the user study conducted at Helsinki University of Technology and analysis of
gathered data (Mostakhdemin-Hosseini et.al, 2004), the framework of the mobile learning
system is defined by using three domains for the system development as “Mobile usability,
wireless technology and e-learning system. “(Mostakhdemin-Hosseini et.al, 2009)
We have to keep in mind that an e-learning system may define special cases, and there is
need to include potential collaborative material with a higher level of interactivity. It is, again,
the issue of the how to define the intersection of all three domains, and how ot find a way to
design such a framework that would be flexible enough to include any newly developed content
or to accommodate a new way of usage.
Mobile usability depends on the availability of the appropriate content or a content
adaptation environment. Two articles from the ACM / IEEE AU libraries also deal with the issue
of Web content adaptation for mobile devices techniques and principles. The issue of content
adaptation becomes of key importance when a multitude of different devices exists, each with
different capabilities, various user preferences, and usage methods.
The first article, “Web content adaptation for mobile handheld devices”, contains a
general review of the issues surrounding presentation of Web content on mobile devices. (Zhang,
2007)
The second article, “Topic-Specific Web Content Adaptation to Mobile Devices”, while
dealing with the same subject, goes further by proposing a new approach. The authors suggest
that, while the issue of multiple devices using the same content was often viewed from device-
centric point that results in the multitude of device characteristics affecting the content
31
presentation, it is the issue of the content presentation itself that need to be addressed (Lee and
all, 2006).
As Dongsong Zhang (2007) points out, device-related adaptation may be done using a
device profile that specifies the MIME media types and physical characteristics of a device. “The
generic Composite Capabilities/Preference Profiles (CC/PP) framework (online at
www.w3.org/2001/di/) provides a mechanism through which a mobile user agent, such as a
browser, can transmit information about the mobile device. A user agent profile based on the
CC/PP framework includes device hardware and software characteristics, information about the
network to which the device is connected, and other attributes (Zhang, 2007).
The LTSA architecture recognizes the importance of interactions between the learner and
learning environment. Thus, a specific layer in the LTSA architecture exists that is concerned
with the acquisition, transfer, exchange, formulation, discovery, etc. of knowledge and/or
information by the learner through interaction with the environment. To some extent, a
multiplatform e-learning system needs to perform such activities and that should be reflected in
the communication dimension of the framework.
2.5. DRM in M-Learning
In an attempt to standardize the m-learning procedures, there have been several different
academic initiatives. They define m-learning content creation (including content packaging,
encoding and storing) and content delivery (where a DRM system may be used to ensure proper
access and usage rights that are applied to the content). Multiple content types will require
multiple DRM solutions (for example, digital books use different DRM schemes from
32
multimedia content; audio or video m-learning objects can use different DRMs). As some of m-
learning objects need to be protected by a DRM, the intention of this research is to provide a
DRM framework capable of handling different content types as well as different use devices
types.
Within the recommended e-learning framework, JISC Technical Framework defines
DRM as a Common Service that “supports the allocation and application of rights policies
against resources, consuming data in a digital rights expression language (DREL) to determine
access. Works through Authorization services, and is generally intended to be called by
Authorization implementations as the result of a request to use a resource.” (Wilson et al, 2004)
Some of the key support functions for a DRM service are (Wilson et al, 2004):
• Allocation and updating of rights associated with objects.
• Validation of the use of objects at run time.
2.6. DRM Interoperability Initiatives
The list of specifications with applicability to this area is extensive, as there are many
activities in the industry and academia. Among others, there are:
• IEEE Digital Rights Expression Language
• XrML
• ODRL
• CreativeCommons
• Europe4DRM
• Business associations, groups, like OMA, Marlin, Coral (Coral Consortium, 2007).
33
Several European Union projects aimed at achieving the consensus regarding the
interoperability and fair usage rules had influenced several EU countries to pass the laws that
regulate the DRM use. The immediate result of these actions was a reaction by various vendors
to advocate for DRM-free content download services and in some cases, even offer DRM-free
music downloads, with Apple’s iTunes service being the most famous example. Apple’s actions
were result of their lack of agreement with the new laws regulating the need for interoperability
of different DRM systems.
Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) represents another initiative, aimed at
development and promotion of an open standard for rights expressions. This initiative is working
on the ODRL v2.0, which is expected to be completed soon and its parts will be included within
the new OMA DRM 2.0 – mobile DRM. They are available online at http://odrl.net.
Europe4DRM, an initiative by EICTA - a European Information, Communications and
Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Association by European Union, involves work of a
high-level group of experts focusing on Digital Rights Management. This initiative is available
online at www.eicta.org.
Canadian mobile operators are also in the process of establishing communication
regarding the interoperability of their multimedia services, mainly music. Currently, this
conversation is made easier by having a single DRM vendor that serves all three big operators
(Bell Mobility, TELUS and Rogers Wireless use DRM solution from Packet Video, former
SDC). There is still no initiative to include other multimedia formats, and that is one of the
starting points of this research, as it aims to propose a possible answer to that issue.
34
2.7. Differentiation of planned research from existing literature
This research gives a new framework for an interoperable solution for DRM handling
within the m-learning context. The need to develop a flexible solution is especially important
within the academic context and in the context of use of open standard licenses and free, non-
DRM protected content. At the same time, DRM as a way to ensure copyrights of the content
owners is a very important part of the full content delivery infrastructure in m-learning.
There are two main differences between this research and majority of the initiatives by
the industry or academy, described in this literature review. The first difference is a way our
research deals with the specific new issue of collaboration in the m-learning environment that is
yet not considered by the other initiatives. Our focus is on the interoperability and ability to share
multimedia files horizontally, between the members of a same class or a team within the class.
Current social trends of social networking (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other) have made
the collaboration and sharing a regular process in everyday life. Our research will propose a new
framework that will help in closing the gap that exists between the m-learning environment and
students’ everyday use of mobile devices.
The second important difference between this research and other mentioned initiatives
lies in the fact that our research is looking at the University as the focal point of the content
delivery for m-learning. Students of a University have their devices registered on different
mobile networks, just like other people in the same geographical area. There are several reasons
why modern m-learning tools and learning mechanisms that include collaboration do not work
for all students.
35
• Unless they all register in the same mobile network, they will not have the same access
rights to the content.
• They may have different delivery behavior defined in the networks.
• They are not able to share the content or send it to each other, while keeping the content
protected from outside usage (which may be important if a student group is working on a
project that should not be shared with outsiders).
This research is proposing a way to define the rights outside of the networks, which
would enable all those sharing mechanisms needed for a modern m-learning environment.
Furthermore, the framework defined in this research will have the flexibility to be open for any
implementation of the future service models.
2.8. Summary
This Chapter contains the analysis of the current academic and industry research, as well
as the literature review with the purpose of describing better this research. All the needed terms
and definitions are discussed within the context of literature review.
This research is using the results of previous research, like COLIS, which demonstrated
the need to include DRM. As this research project looks into the technical part of an m-learning
system that deals with the content rights management, we can recognize that two main issues are
the context of different copyright needs and delivery across the mobile networks, to offer the
same experience to all students and actors in m-learning.
36
To present fully the Content Delivery architecture, the term “framework” is used in its
meaning of the software framework, as the collection of descriptions that defines a potential
solution that can be produced and implemented based on that set of descriptors. There are many
initiatives developed in academic research aimed to define a technical learning framework (MIT
Open Knowledge Initiative, the UK e-University, Sun Microsystems E-Learning Framework, the
Carnegie-Mellon Learning Systems Architecture Laboratory, the JISC Managed Learning
Environment program). All of them considered the framework as a set of services rather then a
full implementation specification.
In exploring the digital content delivery, we need to consider the ways to secure that the
rights of the content authors, owners and other members of the delivery chain are respected. To
represent the intellectual and usage rights, a DRM solution needs to describe the rights using a
defined set of rules - Digital Right Expression Languages (DREL). DRELs deal with the
description of the rights and are of utter importance for interoperability activities
This Chapter also contains a brief overview of the industry solutions and activities. The
combination of the software and hardware DRM solutions are the dominant form of DRM used
today, while only specialized groups of vendors use the hardware-only based DRM. Most often,
DRM solutions assure secure usage of the content based on the combination of the user and the
device’s identity, using a combination of the encryption methods that use that information for
different securing mechanisms (public key, private key, userID).
Issues of DRM in m-learning are also discussed, as well as the differentiation of this
research from other research activities.
37
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The main goal of the project is to develop and describe a new framework for delivery of
the DRM-protected content in an m-learning environment. To achieve this, it was required to
perform a detailed analysis of the DRM interoperability, fully define the elements of a
framework and needed use cases. In addition, it was required to choose the software tools to
identify the solution and to present the new DRM framework that would offer an additional level
of interoperability for an m-learning environment.
This chapter contains discussion on methodology, as well as the analysis of the research
problem. One of the deliverables of this research, the theoretical research of the existing concepts
and complex connections within the elements of DRM frameworks using an m-learning use case
scenario was partly given in Chapter II and is further explored in this Chapter. In addition, a
detailed look at the existing architectures with an overview of the industry and academic trends
completes the deliverable in this Chapter.
To support further the research questions, the analysis of few proposed solutions by
different industry and academic associations is given. The focus of the analysis is on the existing
solutions and the interoperability efforts done in the field. In addition, the project includes an
overview of the main DRM frameworks.
Moreover, the project gives an overview of the interoperability activities around the
world, with the intention to highlight the need for a solution that would satisfy the needs of m-
38
learning in the context of different mobile networks and using the DRM protected content in
collaborative m-learning cases.
3.1. Research Methodology
This project consists of theoretical analysis followed by required practical enhancements.
Consequently, the research methodology is in accordance to the multidisciplinary nature of the
project. There were two separate aspects to this project:
The first aspect involved the determination of how to use the existing DRM-related
solutions and standards in the m-learning environment to enable wider interoperability of
learning units of different multimedia types.
The methodology to achieve this has involved an extensive process of literature review,
aimed to determine significant factors regarding to the existing or suggested DRM solutions and
frameworks, as well as to capture the complexity of m-learning environment related to their
differences or specifics comparing to the business environments. That task was completed in
Chapter II, where a detailed review of the industry and academic research was given. In addition,
Chapter II contains detailed definitions for the needed elements and objects in these two areas
based on the literature review. To have the detailed understanding of the elements comprising a
DRM solution, it was necessary to gather information from various research activities.
The second aspect of the project involved the design and development of the proposed
framework for an interoperable DRM environment for m-learning, given by its architectural
elements, in the forms of XML code for the specific elements, UML diagrams, detailed call
flows through the set of use cases.
39
The following section (Design) of this Chapter gives a detailed analysis of the research
design that has resulted in building a Proof of Concept (POC) logical demo to support the results
of the research. Chapter IV contains POC report, the result analysis and the detailed description
of the demo environment and the resulting Test Cases. UML sequence diagrams are used to
show the communication between the explored elements of the proposed framework.
It is important to understand the methodology as a mean to fulfill the project goal, which
was not to develop a fully functional content delivery platform, but to suggest a new DRM
framework for a generic interoperability environment in the area of m-learning, intended for use
with the multimedia learning objects.
3.2. Design
Multidisciplinary nature of the research has influenced the design components of the
project. The first part of the research draws on the analysis of the existing concepts in Chapter II
and complex connections within the elements of DRM frameworks using an m-learning use case
scenario in this Chapter.
The research solution is supported by the Proof of Concept (POC) demo tests done within
a simulated environment that demonstrates the logical call flow of the messages exchanged
between the hot spots of our proposed framework. The POC demo environment does not attempt
to recreate a fully functional mobile content delivery system, as that is out of scope of this
research. Instead, it contains logical units, with the purpose of providing the POC type of
demonstration with the simulated instead of “real world” content. The POC results allow us to
construct the new framework by using the standard software framework definition elements. As
40
our intention is to make the framework very flexible, the architecture will not presume the use of
any programming languages. Instead, it is given as a set of block architecture and UML diagrams,
with the interfaces and objects defined using the XML schemes as the leads only in helping in
the development of a physical solution.
A basic diagram for the use of a DRM system in an m-learning Use Case with multiple
devices, assuming they are using different DRM systems is shown on Figure 1. The Multi-DRM
Environment box in Figure 1 illustrates the focus of this project:
Figure 1 - Basic M-Learning Use Case with the DRM Architecture
The presented environment has to be defined by using the standard mechanisms –
architecture, element description, call flows and UML diagrams, with the objects defined using
the XML code. The different nature of the devices used in m-learning causes that the DRM
environment needs to be more flexible than a typical mobile Content Delivery environment,
41
usually employing only mobile phone communication elements, as the integration with other
device types is done further back in an operator’s infrastructure (mainly using the operator’s
billing and authentication systems).
Another form of diagrams that are helpful in exploring the context of multimedia files
mobile delivery and usage are the Block Diagrams. When there is no need to describe internal
functionality of the units, we can represent the basic functions using the block diagram. Each
block may be a complex element, consisting of more parts and objects, but which is usually
maintained from a single point, as a single functional unit.
In Chapter II, we have shown that most of the DRM systems consist of the dual
environment - the Client side (residing in a mobile device) and the Server side. This project is
focused on the details of the Server-side only, as the intention of the proposed framework is to
offer the deeper level of interoperability, assuming that the devices have a multitude of media
codecs and associated DRM clients are already present in the handset platform. The basic Client-
side architecture is demonstrated on Figure 2 using an audio file as an example. The functionality
is the same for any multimedia file, except that the appropriate codecs and Java Specification
Requests are used.
A basic client DRM system (box labeled “DRM) consists of multiple DRM systems,
capable of handling different DRMs.
42
Figure 2 - Basic Client-Side DRM Architecture (example: Audio only)
The mobile industry has handled the issues of multi-DRM system needs using the dual
DRM content delivery systems. As home PCs for most cases run Windows OS, most of the
mobile operators provide a dual delivery, usually containing the Windows Media DRM for PC-
formatted content and a mobile DRM (often OMA DRM) for mobile content, as per the block
diagram illustrated by Figure 3 (Framework architecture).
43
Figure 3 - An Example of a Dual DRM System Framework
Figure 3 represents a delivery system that is using Java Messaging to enable dual delivery.
JMS Topic element with which different DRM applications interact, serves as a JMS resource of
the messaging provider. That way, the dual nature of the delivery system is made possible.
Once a basic architecture of an environment is given by block diagrams of the elements,
to understand better communication between the elements, the UML Sequence diagrams are
required. Again, we consider blocks as single units; they may be consisting of multiple
applications or systems. As blocks are considered as single communication points,
communication between the blocks depicts an environment from a functional point of view.
44
UML Diagrams – DRM Architecture Elements
A Basic UML sequence diagram represents the behavior of all of the relevant elements
within a framework. An example of a DRM-related architecture is illustrated by a UML diagram
on Figure 4, representing the basic Use Case of Download of a DRM-protected content.
Figure 4 - Basic UML Sequence Diagram for a DRM Download
The complexity of a UML sequence diagram allows us to define the communication
between the units (or objects) without specifying their internal structure. A UML sequence
diagram can represent well the architecture of an application or a framework. There are cases
where there is no need to specify all the classes or parts of the functional blocks and when the
functionality of the framework can be represented best by a sequence diagram. In designing a
framework with the white hot spots (not going into the specification of already known functional
45
units), the set of sequence UML diagrams demonstrate all the needed connectors and
communication between the units and objects within the proposed framework. For that reason,
this project uses the white hot spots to provide as much flexibility as possible for the future
development, as well as use the UML sequence diagrams to represent the elements of the
framework and relations among them.
A detailed UML sequence diagram for the multi-DRM use case scenario will properly
define the way the Content Rights are handled during the period of acquiring a license within the
process of the content delivery for multiple devices. When analyzing that way the Use Case for
m-learning, it becomes necessary for this research to explore possibility of defining an additional
element in the m-learning DRM framework, capable of communicating with different DRM
systems. Such a new element relies on external DRM systems to create the proper license, based
on the defined set of the content rights.
One of the most important Use Cases for this analysis is the case of Superdistribution of
the mobile content, a feature enabled by DRM. This functionality enables collaboration, by
allowing the students to exchange copyrighted material among them. In addition, as the content
is protected, it cannot be used without a proper license. Students who receive the protected
content and have a compliant device would be able to acquire a license, enabling the content use
on their own devices.
Many current DRM solutions support Superdistribution (including the pv, Microsoft
Playready DRM, OMA v1 Separate Delivery and OMA v2 DRM, among others). For the
purpose of this research, we look at the case of Superdistribution involving multiple mobile
networks, which is of key importance for m-learning environment, as mentioned earlier. The
46
supporting POC use the case of superdistribution as a test of the proposed multi-network capable
DRM framework. Another aspect important for our result analysis in Chapter IV is a case of the
Domain license, where a predefined group of students (a class or a project team) can have a
common license.
Figure 13 represents a basic case of superdistribution on a single network, when users
have different rights regarding the content. Different contents may have different rights
associated with them, as in case of content X (user with device 3 is allowed to acquire rights
automatically to the content). The content Y (when an instant preview is enabled prior to
acquiring the full license for the content), and content Z (when the rights for a preview need to
be requested from the operator) are given in Figure 5 illustrating two more different cases.
Figure 5 - UML Sequence Diagram of Superdistribution Use Case
47
3.2.1. DRM Architecture
Based on the previous discussion, a generic look at the DRM elements is demonstrated
by Figure 6. As it can be seen, we can identify four main actors in the process: Consumer,
Content Distributor, Service Provider and Content Licensor.
Figure 6 - DRM Elements Architecture
A detailed analysis at the level of abstraction needed to construct the proper definitions
for each element within a multi-DRM framework helps us understand the needs of an m-learning
related DRM environment. The elements that describe actions within a DRM part of a Content
Delivery System are given below, based on Figures 5 and 6.
48
1. Content creation
Making and recording the digital multimedia content represents the first phase. The
content is given in a raw format, or encoded in some lossless format (if audio or video), or in the
form of software.
Next step in this action is to associate information about the content and identification
with it – definition and creation of metadata (title, author, keywords, etc.) and unique identifiers
(ISBN, for example). There are different identification systems for other media types. Most of
those unique identifiers are not digitally available, and content distributors frequently capture
their own metadata.
2. Content aggregation
Content aggregation is mostly related to the distribution and content creation. The
Metadata capturing is often done in this phase. Sometimes encoding into a standard format is
done at this level as well (for example, record labels frequently encode their content in a
standardized format across the board).
3. Rights definition
The each content owner together with the distributor defines ways in which the content
can be used (rent, purchase, play or record, for example). Accordingly, the contract specifies
what the content delivery system needs to fulfill regarding the content owner. The rights are key
information that is a crucial part of making the content interoperable on multiple devices and
49
under different DRM systems. Usually, this set of rights is associated with the object actions and
could be mapped into a set of object-oriented interfaces towards an object (the content).
4. Offer management
The content delivery systems use or contain content management functionalities, where
the offer management represents their major function. The system needs to resolve the metadata
associated with the content and define the exact set of actions appropriate for the content. The
interfaces from the offer management are of key importance for the definitions of any multi-
DRM systems. It is necessary to define a detailed set of rules and available interfaces to this
element to build a fully multi-DRM framework.
5. Content packaging
The content needs to be packaged in a usable form to be transported and delivered. The
packaging should make the content inaccessible for unauthorized users. Most of the systems use
the container format that relies on cryptographic algorithms such as DES17 or AES18. An
example of a container package is the Multimedia Protection Protocol by Fraunhofer Institute,
another SDC’s Digital Multimedia Object used for mobile audio media, or Adobe’s file format
for documents.
Another set of technologies related to the identification of content are watermarking and
fingerprinting, frequently called the forensic DRM technologies that help in proving that a
copyright violation has taken place, instead of providing the content protection. They are often
packaged with the content.
50
6. License creation
License creation is the process that is the most proprietary factor in today’s delivery
systems. The license is usually dependant on the end device, while sometimes depends on the
type of the content and access methods (interactive or off-line use, for example). The systems
like SDC Java DRM, Microsoft Windows Media DRM, Apple FairPlay DRM, and Adobe DRM
all create different licenses. Some academic and industry organizations have attempted to create
standard licensing systems (OMA DRM being the largest association).
Because of existence of multiple standards for DRM license creation; this research
project is not focused on the creation of another standard for licensing. The question of a
standardized DRM licensing system is very difficult to resolve today, as the problem is to find a
way to define a unique approach that is acceptable for the whole industry. Instead, the project
aims to offer the options in the rights management field that are able to handle multiple DRM
standards.
7. Content access
Frequently, the content access is part of the packaging element, as the secure rights
access method is a part of the content package. Hence, the standard ways of interoperating with
components that are interpreting the rights information and act on it in consistent ways are
required (Rosenblatt, 2003). As a result, the content rights and related information are specified
in a standard Rights Expression Language (REL). Examples of RELs are XrML (eXtensible
rights Markup Language from ContentGuard, now owned by Microsoft and Thomson), used by
51
many standard organizations, including the ISO/MPEG (for their MPEG 21 REL), the Open
eBook Forum (OeBF), the OASIS, and Open Mobile Alliance (OMA).
The authentication of a user or a device is also an important part of the content access
element. Even before a device is fully authenticated and a specific identifier used for a license
creation, the device and the service may need to authenticate themselves to one another. It is also
important to note that even components within a DRM system need to communicate using
secured channels.
8. Content delivery
The content delivery is out of the scope of this project, as it depends on a device that is
used for the content. There are different methods and standards defined for it – from Over the Air
(OTA), defined for mobile devices to the standard delivery using various Internet technologies.
The content needs to be secured during the delivery if possible, to minimize the opportunity of a
non-fair use or interception.
9. License delivery
Along with the posiblity to deliver the license securely and separately from the content,
multitude of usage models have been born. The subscription, side-loading, recording, or gifting
and renting have become possible, once the delivery of the content and the license carrying the
usage models for the content are protected and secured.
52
10. Content use
In order to use the protected and encrypted content, a device requires the appropriate
methods to decrypt the content and translate the license into the usage rights. This step causes the
most of the problems with the DRM-protected content, because to be able to use such content,
the end device has to strip all the protection off the content. This was a way to “break” many
DRMs (an example being Microsoft Windows Media DRM). For example, it interesting to note
the problems for Apple FairPlay DRM when it was discovered that it had been “broken”, and
consequently, some online subscription services started offering download of the content that
could be used on devices with the FairPlay DRM. That forced frequent upgrades by Apple as
well as use of advanced obfuscation techniques to increase the resiliency against reverse
engineering and, more importantly, malicious attacks.
11. Monitoring, reporting, and billing.
New business and usage models that are enabled by DRM are possible only if a proper
monitoring reporting is used. The events like the purchase of content have been important as well,
allowing the event–based payments (such as “pay–per–view”).
53
3.2.2. Objects Representation
The digital content we use today has an associated set of the rights that depend on the
content’s nature and intended usage models. If the content is video material recorded on a DVD,
we can purchase it, rent it, or borrow it from a friend – the content has been acquired, paid for
and the licensing rights are respected. This represents a similar usage model present in
interaction with almost any physical object – there are set of actions that can be done with it,
originating from the nature of the content itself and the rights for its use.
The digital content also has the associated set of actions that can be done with it, with the
associated set of rights. For example, the content can be played for a limited time, or a number of
times, recorded or copied to another device. Digital rights models are essentially the object
models for digital media. The connection between the object-oriented programming and digital
rights models becomes more obvious when we look into the objects definitions. The objects in
object-oriented programming are defined as containing the list of all the available actions to or
from them, which is very similar if not the same with the digital rights models, according to
Rosenblatt (Rosenblatt and all, 2002).
The analogy with the Object Oriented elements to describe the digital right models
determines the methodology and deliverables of this project. Similarly, as objects have attributes
defining possible actions on objects, as well as the possibility to define interfaces that describe
generic objects, we can look into the rights definition for the protected content as a way to
describe the actions that we can apply on the learning material.
54
Recognizing that this “objectization” of the digital content helps with the defining the
proper ways the DRM framework elements interact with each other, this research project uses
the appropriate models and methodologies from the world of Object Oriented programming –
UML diagrams, call flows, and the architecture with the interfaces.
The analysis of existing solutions and initiatives, along with the detailed flows
determined by them is also included, with the aim to describe more visible ways to enhance the
abstraction capabilities of the rights and offer management elements within the proposed
framework.
By using the elements described in the previous section (DRM Architecture), we can look
into a Datastore element as consisting of several objects. Our Datastore, will, therefore, assume
the functionality of a Right Locker, an element that communicates with the different mobile
content delivery providers, and, ultimately, with different network operators. Figure 7 illustrates
the Datastore element that we use in this research. It is comprised by a several “generic” objects,
such as Offer and Asset management portals, that are handling the possible content storage (in
case that an University wants to store all the m-learning content in a single storage unit),
Maintenance and Support and Operator Management. The Rights Locker and User Management
are two objects that we look into, as those functions have the biggest impact on flexibility of the
proposed framework, enabling the case of Superdistribution and handling the multiple networks.
55
Figure 7 - Datastore Element
As this section of Chapter III demonstrates the way in which the project intends to
answer to the research questions, the following section (Sampling), gives more details on the
project deliverables and used templates.
3.3 Sampling
The Project deliverables include:
1. Detailed discussion based on the theoretical research of the existing concept and theories
related to the question of the DRM protected content delivery systems and the existing
DRM frameworks. This deliverable was explored in Chapters II and III with the detailed
analysis given in Chapter IV;
2. Theoretical analysis of the typical m-learning Use Case Scenario. By this Case, protected
content is available for multiple devices and with different models of use. This is
56
discussed later in this section, with the further details provided in the Chapter IV, when
the analysis of the Test Cases for POC is given.
3. Proposed design of the new enhanced architecture, given in the form of:
a) Multi-DRM framework architecture block diagram;
b) UML sequence diagrams and Call flows;
c) Protocol dependencies;
d) Interface definitions;
e) Rights definitions, given by XML description files.
The block diagram of the proposed framework (deliverable “a”) is given as a part of the
results in Chapter IV, and the resulting analysis of POC is done to create the descriptions of
protocol dependencies and Interface definitions (deliverables “c” and “d”, respectively). Detailed
UML diagrams for the multi-DRM use case scenario and resulting POC Test Cases is explored
in the Chapter IV, as well. The design of the new framework will be supported by the
appropriate rights definitions, given as XML file descriptive files.
The Digital Rights of a multimedia object is represented by the deliverable “e”, and one
of the examples is an ODRL representation of the rights, used in OMA DRM v2, given by Figure
8:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xsd:schema targetNamespace="http://www.openmobilealliance.com/oma-
dd"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
xmlns:o-ex="http://odrl.net/1.1/ODRL-EX"
xmlns:o-dd="http://odrl.net/1.1/ODRL-DD"
xmlns:oma-dd="http://www.openmobilealliance.com/oma-dd"
elementFormDefault="qualified"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
57
>
<xsd:import namespace="http://odrl.net/1.1/ODRL-EX"
schemaLocation="http://odrl.net/1.1/ODRL-EX-11.xsd"/>
<xsd:element name="export" substitutionGroup="o-
ex:permissionElement">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexContent>
<xsd:extension base="o-ex:permissionType">
<xsd:attribute name="mode" use="required">
<xsd:simpleType>
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:NMTOKEN">
<xsd:enumeration value="move"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="copy"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
</xsd:attribute>
</xsd:extension>
</xsd:complexContent>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="system" type="o-ex:constraintType"
substitutionGroup="o-ex:constraintElement"/>
<xsd:element name="timed-count" substitutionGroup="o-
ex:constraintElement">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:simpleContent>
<xsd:extension base="xsd:positiveInteger">
<xsd:attribute name="timer"
type="xsd:positiveInteger" use="required"/>
</xsd:extension>
</xsd:simpleContent>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:schema>
Figure 8 - OMA Data Dictionary schema (OMA DRM REL V2.0, 2004)
3.3.1. M-Learning Use Cases
As today’s students have accounts in different mobile networks, we have to take into
account the need to support multiple delivery paths to an end device. In other words, it is
58
important to consider not only the differences among the end devices but also the different
infrastructures of different networks. That includes different formats, rights definitions, content
handling, DRM rules and license format (for example, while one operator may support a
Creative Commons license, others may not).
Understanding that the mobile learning deals with the multitude devices in the context
where students use different mobile operators, there is a need to define an interoperable solution
that would enable students to participate in m-learning environments within a network they
already use with their mobile devices, instead of a learning institution forcing that choice on the
students. As mentioned earlier, in a situation where a University wants to enable m-learning to
include the collaboration, content sharing, and to maintain the content copyrights, it has to assure
equal treatment of any mobile network in the area. In addition, it needs to assure that the mobile
networks allow file sharing with the different networks, while maintaining the copyrights. Today,
that is not the case, as there is no way to transfer the copyrighted content across the mobile
networks anywhere in the world. This research hopes to improve the situation by proposing the
new framework for m-learning that supports interoperability and collaboration with the DRM
protected content.
With that in mind, we explore two m-learning use cases, which represent the main issues
within the context of the m-learning and mobile content delivery of copyrighted material:
1. A student downloads a learning unit that he/she wants to share with colleagues from
the same learning group. In most cases, students will be using different mobile networks. From
that perspective, the content sharing or superdistribution would be impossible among different
networks (under the assumption that the original network supports the superdistribution, which is
59
not always the case; the mobile networks in Canada support that mode, however). If an inter-
carrier gateway is used, which consists of Right management and Rights translating elements, we
can get the rights properly translated and content delivered onto the other network to end users.
2. When a student wants to move to another mobile network, the question arises about
what will happen with the already acquired multimedia content. Again, we have to look into
another new element, an online vault or digital locker that would contain the rights information
for all the users. If that locker were unified across Canada, for example, the move from one to
another network would not affect the ability of students to have access to their previously
acquired content.
The test cases based on those Use Cases are described in the POC analysis in Chapter IV,
while the next section (Instrumentation), describes the call flows based on the two use cases.
3.4. Instrumentation
We look into two examples of different possible solutions for this use case:
Inter-carrier gateway
• Responsible for managing and enforcing the defined business and usage models
for purchased, rented or downloaded media files.
• Integrated with each operator storefront and billing system for validation and
potential ecommerce, with a specific academic authentication front-end.
• Universal DRM (or a specific DRMs, with the translator module)
60
The “Inter-carrier gateway” uses the similar approach that is already in use for SMS
service across the world. An additional network element deals with the rights and licenses for a
specific content and translates information from one to another operator. Figure 9 illustrates the
case when using a multimedia file. This Inter-carrier gateway will be used every time there is
content going from one to another mobile network, without any DRM concerns. The copyrighted
content would need to be handled with another additional element, making this use case not ideal
for a m-learning usage.
In addition, the question of maintenance and support for this use case is a significant
issue, as there will have to be an independent entity providing those services for all the operators
and universities, which may be difficult to organize.
Figure 9 - Example One: Inter-Carrier gateway
61
Example One Call Flow:
1. Multimedia archive of the Operator 1 Content Portal informs Inter-Carrier gateway of
a request from a student looking at a multimedia file.
2. Inter-Carrier gateway submits transaction into Operator 1 billing system and records
against the student’s mobile authentication account.
3. Multimedia file is wrapped in a proprietary or a universal DRM and is delivered to
mobile.
4. Consumer attempts to play the learning file.
5. Content is validated with Inter-Carrier gateway and playback is granted.
6. User shares multimedia file with a friend who is a customer of operator 2.
7. Colleague, student 2 attempts to play shared multimedia object.
8. Playback is validated with Inter-Carrier gateway.
9. Inter-carrier gateway validates content is available for purchase/rental
10. Inter-Carrier gateway submits transaction into operator 2 billing system and records
download against the mobile account. Playback is granted.
From the example mentioned above, we can see why this use case is not ideal for our
analysis, as it does not offer a flexibility needed for a m-learning environment. For that reason,
62
our major focus is on the second use case, where we can define a separate unit providing the
services related to the copyrighted content, which is a case that suites better to m-learning and
the new trends in online usage, such as collaboration.
The second example uses a Digital Online Vault, based on the idea that a consolidated
licensing authority could keep all the information about the rights for all the objects in all the
networks used for a learning depository. This example would work successfully if, for example,
a country recognizes the need for a unified learning depository vault for all the universities.
Online vault, Unified Digital Locker
• Responsible for managing the users owned media library and authorized PCs and
mobile devices.
• Each operator is responsible for delivering the media from the online vault to the
users’ authorized mobile device and/or a PC in their proprietary formats.
• Integrated with each operator storefront for validation (using the unified academic
authentication front-end).
• Distributed DRMs.
63
Figure 10 - Example 2: Online Vault
Example 2 Call Flow:
1. Consumer downloads a multimedia track from operator 1 store;
2. Operator 1 Content Portal submits the transaction into Operator’s One Billing and
Authentication system.
3. Operator 1 Content Portal submits learning file rights information into Online Vault.
4. Learning multimedia file is wrapped in the DRM defined by Operator 1 and is
delivered to mobile using the operator 1 mobile network infrastructure.
5. Consumer attempts to play media file.
6. Content is validated with operator 1 Content Portal and playback is granted.
64
7. User “ports” to operator 2 and requests to synch acquired media files.
8. Operator 2 media store requests owned media information under account
9. Media files are wrapped in the DRM defined by operator 2 and delivered to mobile.
10. Media playback is granted.
As we can see, this use case is better suited for the case of m-learning which we have
defined previously as the research focus. The Online Vault can be considered as a key
interoperability factor that enables universities to assure equal treatment of all students. In
addition, by making it more flexible, we can prepare the m-learning environment to react to new
trends, such as previously mentioned collaboration and file sharing among predefined group.
3.5. Summary
This Chapter discusses the methodology of this research by giving a detailed look at the
architecture of the framework for m-learning. In addition, the research problem is defined by use
of the Use Case that will be developed further into the Test Cases for the Proof of Concept in
Chapter IV. This Chapter also contains the detailed analysis of a DRM framework, as well as the
analysis of the previously explored DRM interoperability methods that represent the basis of this
research.
To summarize, this research proposes a new framework for Digital Rights Management
within the mobile learning environment. This project offers the design for a system that accepts
the use of multiple DRM systems with the ability to transcode the acquired rights into
65
appropriate licenses for use in a learning environment. The purpose is to offer new options in
treating the issue of use of multiple device types with the protected content.
Considering the chosen Use Case of Online Vault, this project makes certain assumptions.
By developing the Online Vault idea further, we create a new framework that better supports the
required functionality. Instead of having a single licensing authority, we propose a Data
Depository object (element), storing information needed by a specific university. While that
allows for a possibility that the multiple University Data Depositories for m-learning may exist,
our proposed framework is flexible enough to allow different implementations.
In order to make this project feasible we had to make several other assumptions. Instead
of creating complete Java classes for the proposed framework, we see the main purpose of this
research is helping to advance m-learning technologies. For that reason, we use concept of white
hot spots in the proposed framework definitions, to make the result more flexible.
Furthermore, in the process of selecting the Proof of Concept simulations, we used the
analysis of the full DRM framework (given in Chapter IV) to select the appropriate granularity
of our environment. That resulted in creating the environment that does not deal with the actual
content delivery, as that is the function left to mobile operators, as that makes one of the major
differences of proposed framework from other research.
Design implementation and the results with the analysis of Proof of Concept tests are
given in Chapter IV. The following Chapter contains as well the set of UML sequence diagrams
and call flows to describe the proposed framework.
66
CHAPTER IV
DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION AND TESTING RESULTS
This chapter contains a number of elements needed for the research result analysis.
4.1. Introduction
The dual nature of this Chapter is a result of the approach taken in this research, which is to
combine the theoretical analysis of existing activities in the academic research with industry
research and to support the proposed solution with a Proof of Concept demo tests illustrating the
functional flow, rather than offering another closed architecture model for an m-learning DRM
framework. The major purpose of this Chapter is to help to describe the proposed framework for
the interoperable delivery of m-learning content to students when using DRM technologies to
assure the fair usage and maintenance of the copyrights.
This Chapter analyzes the Proof of Concept (POC) done in the support of the research
goals and the Design of the proposed framework. The purpose of the POC analysis is to verify
the assumptions regarding the functionality of the proposed framework. To do this we have
created a test environment that consists of the relevant elements within the Mobile Content
Delivery Context (illustrated by a complete framework depicting all of the elements, as per
earlier sections).
The goal of a Proof of Concept demo test is to prove any assumptions in a non-
production environment with no end-user involved. The analysis of the assumptions listed in the
67
next section is based on the complete Call Flows of our Use Cases (with the addition of the URL
sequence diagram of the framework to help us identify the relevant steps).
In addition, we use this POC analysis to evaluate some open questions that have risen
within the industry of mobile content delivery using the interoperable DRM-based systems,
including:
- Interpretation of the Rights metadata – not just at the level of Right Expression
Languages, but also within the Content Management Systems (CMS). Philosophy of this project
is that we should use open standards in m-learning and with any learning tools whenever is
possible, to eliminate the dependencies often slowing down the acceptance of new modern
methods in learning technologies. For that purpose, we used ODRL as a rights language, Dublin
Core metadata set and Creative Commons licenses, assuming that the students’ collaboration
products should be open for fair usage.
- Implementation issues, including the hosting questions regarding the
Interoperability System. We discuss implementation in the analysis of POC only as an example,
without the intention to limit the implementation of proposed framework to specific tools,
applications or operating systems. For that reason, the POC demo was done in two operating
systems, Linux and Microsoft Windows XP, as two most frequently used today.
- Content and users registering for this service (delivery of learning objects over
different mobile networks). For the purpose of any m-learning environment, the user
authentication and content storage (including portals providing access to the content) may be
defined as parts of the environment. This research introduces a critical new approach that while
the University may have a Web portal page for m-learning material, it should not host or provide
68
the complete delivery service. Instead, the University should let content providers handle that
role. That focuses better the role of a university in the m-learning value chain – as a policy setter,
not implementer. The examples of this are found around the industry – where content owners do
not deliver the content by themselves, letting the Content Providers to fulfill that role, with the
involvement of Mobile Operators, as they are the ultimate owners of the mobile network.
- Integration with the separate DRM systems, DRM translators either used or
recommended. The process of integration with external DRM systems is often very difficult as
many of them use proprietary technologies. This caused that the proposed framework has limited
communication with external providers, consisting of standard messages and rights information
exchange, instead of sending the SOAP messages directly to appropriate applications within an
external DRM solution. Only by keeping the communication with an external element to the
upper levels, we can design a flexible solution, which was the intention of this research project.
As any Proof of Concept, this one also opens new research areas. We hope this project
will be helpful in the future research, which is discussed more fully in Chapter V. To execute our
POC, the industry recommendations for the POC planning and execution are followed, presented
in four phases:
1. Develop Tests: Determination of the proper Use Cases where the resulting
environment needs to depict fully the needed cases.
2. Create Test Environment – Installation and configuration of all applications
determined as needed to execute the planned test cases in full, defined in the step 1.
69
3. Make adjustments as necessary – After the first run, certain tuning was needed to get
the most relevant functions covered in the test (for example, for the tests, it was not relevant to
deal with the content delivery, as we are investigating the rights/license interoperability and not
the mobile content delivery).
4. Document findings – We represented the results in the form of the discussion of the
test cases. The cases helped us in describing the new elements of the proposed framework,
describing them using the previously mentioned means, UML sequence diagrams, Call Flows
and block diagrams, as well as providing the examples of the formats and protocols used. IN
addition, Chapter V contains a detailed discussion of any issues and recommendations for
resolving them.
The Proof of Concept (POC) phase of the project is designed to determine the
capabilities of the proposed DRM Framework to achieve the goal of the project. During the POC,
a prototype Interoperable DRM environment database is built, with scripts to simulate interfaces
within the needed call flows. The applications are tested to evaluate their functionality in a Linux
CMS Server and Windows environment. Each test case is based on the Use Case analysis and the
results (XML files, SQL commands, DB structure and the license example) are documented
within this section. The main purpose of the POC was not to show the full system or to offer a
deployment design, but, instead, to better support the argument and offer a flexible solution to
future deployments. The next section (POC Analysis) represents a summary report of the POC
procedures.
70
4.2. POC Analysis
This Proof of Concept demo is designed to test the typical m-learning Use Case Scenario
where the protected content is available for multiple devices and with different models of use,
and is available for multiple networks. For the purpose of the POC, we have designed an
additional element, a Digital M-Learning RightsDepository (dMLRiD) that will provide the
innovative function within this Project. To define the test cases, the Use Cases analysis is used.
4.2.1. Use Case Analysis
The POC is designed to deal with the problem based on the preliminary tests overviews
done by industry (multiple operators, multi DRM systems) and academia. For example,
Polytechnic University of Catalonia researchers, working on the architecture for the
interoperability between rights expression languages used XACML as a regulator, and proposed
an addition in the architecture to deal with the Social Networking.
The previous tests have shown a lack of an encompassing element that would take care of
the specifics of an m-learning environment such as the multiple mobile networks that students
may be using. For that reason, a new element was needed in an interoperable DRM framework
when used in the m-learning environment.
For Use Cases, we analyzed the typical m-learning case, in which students collaborating
within a class, exchanging the learning object. The students could be using the same or different
mobile networks. It is important to understand that from the functional perspective our proposed
framework does not differentiate those two cases (the same or a different network). This is one
of the main advantages of our approach, to make just another layer in the logical structure of the
71
framework, allowing us to focus on the main environment functionality – to enable the transfer
of DRM protected files between the students within the m-learning context.
Based on this, and as described previously in Chapter III, we have our basic Use Case,
the superdistribution of the content, which we use to develop two basic test cases. Figure 11
illustrates the specific architecture of our Use Case, and it represents a specialization of the more
generic Use Case in Figure 10 in Chapter III. Instead of using a fully functional object Online
Vault, as described in Chapter III, this research examines and proposes a new element – the
Digital M-Learning Rights Depository (dMLRiD). The intention of this POC analysis is to
support the functionality of this element, which improves a framework for m-learning.
Use Case – Superdistribution:
Figure 11 - Use Case Architecture Diagram
72
a. Student 1 creates or acquires a DRM-protected content that she/he wants to share
with a colleague student from the same class.
b. Student 1 does not know which network is student 2 on.
c. Content Provider 1 (CP1) needs to acknowledge the Superdistribution rights for
the content and Forward rights for Student 1 (by having the mechanism in the network to send
the content to another user);
d. Content delivered by Content Provider2, either by receiving it from CP1 or by
delivering local content with the appropriate license for their network.
e. License for the content needs to be delivered by CP2, based on the information
from an external translation system in order to make this use case even possible.
The major problem with this Use Case is that the licenses differ for different DRM
systems that mobile providers deploy. A process of translation of licenses may be difficult to be
approved by the operators, especially in the case where an external content hosting is used. In
order to translate the licenses, a translator is needed, with the integrated communication with all
of the networks. Another problem is the availability of the content transportation mechanism –
we could use Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), except the protocol has the size limitation
that would limit the transfer of almost any new multimedia.
Based on this problem analysis, we defined our Test Cases. The scope of this research
projects limits the ability for POC to utilize the full Use Case or to explore the complete
functional test cases. Our goal is, then, to show the communication between the objects, and not
to deliver the content to any end destination, as the actual enhancements of this new proposed
framework is described by the communication flow.
73
We assume further that there is an external translation service and only deal with the
process of superdistribution if the CP 2 contains the needed content. In that case, we needed a
mechanism to handle the content information and communicate with the CP1 and CP2, in order
to make this content superdistribution possible:
Test Case 1 – Superdistribution, external Translation:
Figure 12 - Test Case 1 UML Sequence Diagram
a. In order to use the content superdistribution, both students need to be registered in the
RightsDepository (dMLRiD) system. RightsLocker will contain the profiles for the whole class –
in our case, just two students.
b. Student 1 acquires or creates a DRM-protected content (Content1) that she/he wants
to share with a colleague student from the same class. Student 1 does not need to know which
network is student 2 on.
74
c. Assuming that the content is not in the DataDepository, the license is translated* into
the rights and the appropriate end then into the proper license for the Student 2 to be able to use
the content.
(* - Translation is assumed to be done by an external system (i.e. XAL– needed approval from a
CP), and the test case does not deal with that part.)
d. Use of external translators to get the rights from the licenses is assumed, as the demo
is not concerned with this part of the flow;
e. It is assumed that the Content Provider 1 gives permission to the Forward right for
user1 for a specific content1;
f. Depository acknowledges the content availability in the network 2 (DB Lookup) and
pushes the rights (translated into the license by Translators) to CP2 (over an external translation
element, hence the test is to push the content rights info);
g. The test does not cover the end-delivery of the content by CP2, as that is another
mechanism.
Test Case 2 – Superdistribution - no translation
The basic assumption of the second Test Case is that there is no translation of the licenses.
Instead, the Rights Locker of the Depository contains the needed rights information for the
content. It is of key importance to understand that this case contains the first case and is actually
overcompensating for the lack of a translator. It is, therefore, our chosen Case for the demo tests.
The UML sequence diagram demonstrating the call flow needed for this case is illustrated on
Figure 13.
75
Figure 13 - Test Case 2 - Superdistribution without the translation
a. In this case, we eliminate the need for an external translator. DataDepository contains
the information about all the content needed for the ClassA;
b. Rights are acquired from the dMLRiD (if the content is registered with the dMLRiD,
it may be forwarded to another user) by a lookup into the Content Depository;
c. In order to use the content superdistribution, both students need to be registered in the
RightsDepository (dMLRiD) system. RightsLocker will contain the user profiles for the whole
class A – in our case, just two students.
d. Student 01 receives a DRM-protected content (Content01) that she/he wants to share
with a colleague student from the same class. Student 01 does not need to know which network
is student 02 on.
e. Since the content profile is in the DataDepository, the proper license for the Student
02 can be created by CP2 based on the rights push;
76
h. Depository acknowledges the content availability in the network 2 (DB Lookup, or, in
our case, it is assumed that both content providers are participants in an “academic content
delivery system”) and pushes the rights to CP2 (demonstrated by an license example);
i. The test does not cover the end-delivery of the content by CP2, as that is another
mechanism;
j. Content delivered by CP2, either by receiving it from CP1 or by delivering local
content with the appropriate license for their network.
In addition to describing the tests, this case analysis helps us as well in establishing the
environment for POC. The needed architecture that demonstrates functionality without enforcing
any technology, together with the exact interfaces, creates a need for a generalized approach. The
resulting architecture of the environment and used tools are all open standard configurations, and
the demo may be limited to demonstrating the functionality of the Depository and depicting the
needed call flow.
4.2.2. POC Software Configuration
As mentioned previously in this Chapter, the software used in the POC is based on open
standard solutions. From the Test Case Analysis, we have developed the software requirements
for the demo environment set. We need a Database creation tools, an open Database environment,
communication tools and scripting tools, as well as the database access tools.
Table 4 represents software configuration of our demo system. We used two
environments, Windows XP and a Linux Operating systems, to assure the open character of any
elements.
77
Table 4 - POC Software Configuration
For the purpose of the POC, we used different setup with two servers, and even a single
server in the second run of the tests. The reasoning for this was the scalability of the actual test
case, as we did not have to construct an environment that requires high capacity or performance;
instead, the idea was to provide a known environment with a choice of free, open tools and
software solutions for the structured parts.
Different tools have been used for producing UML Diagrams such as Dia, and MS Visio.
The database was created with the two tables, representing the Rights Locker and the Data
Dictionary, respectively. Web access to the database was configured, which was used for the
scripting access to the records in both tables. Several content descriptions, with the metadata as
well as user information were configured, reflecting the test cases.
78
4.2.3. Digital Depository Architecture (dMLRiD)
This section analyses the architecture of the POC environment and the impact of the
generalizations used for the POC. To understand the used architecture for the POC, we need to
consider again the full DRM architecture, represented in Chapter III, with the description of the
DRM related element of a solution. Figure 14 illustrates a generic Content Delivery System,
which can be seen as a Multi-DRM framework.
Figure 14 -Multi-DRM Framework encompassing a Content Management System
We can identify all the DRM-related elements, as well as those needed to provide
delivery functionality, communication within the network with an operator’s environment. This
79
framework helps us to scope down our needed architecture by eliminating the non-essential
elements.
The complete content delivery structure, with all the interfaces and objects would not
help our analysis at this moment, and can therefore, be eliminated from our environment.
Complete integration of our proposed environment (even for a demo), would include higher
levels of communication among mobile networks and universities and is out of scope for this
research. A future research, with a larger scope, budget and timing would be an appropriate step
in the development of m-learning,
Offer Management System, with the interfaces and connections to the operator’s CRM
and Billing systems, as well as the APS part with the access definitions for the applications is not
considered, as well.
Single DRM Abstraction Layer would work in a single, unified DRM Solution, which
was not the intention of this project. As mentioned in Chapter III, in the description of the project
assumptions, we are focusing on the collaboration as our major Use Case. To establish a proper
environment, within our POC we need to encapsulate communication between the two different
mobile networks by simulating two different versions of the rights definitions.
Knowing the structure of the License Creation process allows us to see that the simple
exchange of the XML files gives enough information for a license creation. In addition, in trying
to establish the communication between different networks, we do not need to be concerned with
the messaging itself, as that is a well-known wireless service that is even now possible between
different networks. The only messages required to be exchanged are information about the users,
80
and for that purpose, we have to define the Data Depository and use Metadata standards to
describe the learning material defined for a specific University.
In addition, it is very important to highlight that for the initial process of registering data
for use in m-learning, we need to assume that the university would communicate with the mobile
operators to acquire an access to the operators’ Data Portals, the same way other content owners
would do.
As a result, we now have a desired architecture of our POC environment that focuses on
the dMLRiD element of the framework, which functionality depicts properly the innovation of
our proposed framework. Figure 15 illustrates the dMLRiD in the context of communication,
making the requirements for the needed environment even more prominent.
Figure 15 – POC Architecture
The main element of the POC is the Digital M-Learning Rights Depository (dMLRiD)
that consists of two databases – DataDepository and the RightsDepository (or RightsLocker) as
81
displayed on Figure 16. The POC demonstrates the functionality of the dMLRiD, which is given
by its architecture based on the set of standards (Dublin Core Metadata, Learning Objects
Metadata, ODRL, OMA, CC).
Figure 16 - dMLRiD - POC Environment
4.2.4. Databases Description
The Data Depository defines the data dictionary elements, and provides information
about the content used in the Test Cases (Content01 and Content02), containing the profile for all
the rights metadata one content might have. A simple profile is defined and contained in the
database, describing the content in use for all test cases.
Data (content) Profile is described in the Depository using the CreativeCommons profile,
and based on a combination of the Dublin Core Metadata description and several Learning
metadata definitions, including the ILIM. For the full rights description, the modified ODRL
82
structure to declare the content rights was used (considering its use in the OMA and other often-
used licensing systems).
Used Dublin Core Metadata
The metadata elements are given within three groups, the Content of the resource,
Intellectual Property, and Instantiation of the resource, as per Table 5, below. We will use the
semantic based on the Dublin Core Metadata to define the content used for the POC.
Table 5 – Dublin Core based Metadata Elements
ODRL Data Dictionary Elements:
To define the rights profile, we used the ODRL Data Dictionary elements, as per the
Figure 17. To achieve the proper dictionary setup, we used an XML-based template, as defined
in Figure 17.
83
Figure 17 - ODRL Data Dictionary elements
Content description is needed to communicate with the operator when we want to relay
the precise information on the transported m-learning material. By using an open standard for
content rights description, we hope to achieve flexibility as per our plans discussed in Chapters II
and III.
By looking at the Figure 17, we can create an XML-based template for all the objects, as
shown below. Object Context contains only a UserID, a numeric value of an identificator:
<rights>
<context>
<uid> </uid>
</context>
84
Data Dictionary element Offer describes the set of permissions and identifies the person
(Party) with the rights and the context associated with it. Permission is a complex object,
containing several parameters, asset identification, permission type, and party description.
<offer>
<asset></asset>
<permission>
<permission-type>
<requirement></requirement>
<constraint></constraint>
</permission-type>
<condition></condition>
</permission>
<party>
<context></context>
<rightsholder></rightsholder>
</party>
</offer>
Object Agreement contains a combination previously defined objects such as Context,
Party, Permission and Asset.
<agreement>
<context></context>
<party></party>
<permission></permission>
<asset></asset>
</agreement>
</rights>
85
The Creative Commons Profile type data dictionary definitions
To define our default license, we used Creative Commons Profile type definitions, as per
Table 6.
Type Identifier Definition
Permission Reproduction The work may be reproduced
Permission Distribution
The work (and, if authorized, derivative
works) may be distributed, publicly displayed,
and publicly performed
Permission DerivativeWorks Derivative works may be created and
reproduced
Permission Sharing Noncommercial copying and distribution (like
file-sharing) of the entire work are allowed
Constraint NonCommercialUse Rights may NOT be exercised for commercial
purposes
Constraint NonHighIncomeNationUse
Rights may NOT be exercised in nations
defined as high-income economies by the
World Bank
Requirement Notice Copyright and license notices must be kept
intact
Requirement ShareAlike Derivative works must be licensed under the
same terms as the original work
Requirement SourceCode
Source code (the preferred form for making
modifications) must be provided for all
derivative works
Table 6 - The Creative Commons Profile data dictionary definitions
86
4.3. POC Report
In this report, we look into the call flows and communication among the elements, as
well as the file structure and the description of the objects within the elements. Tests results are
given by supporting files and messages, as well as the call flow description and UML diagrams.
Figure 18 illustrates a UML sequence diagram depicting the call flow of the process of
initialization of the environment.
Figure 18 - Environment Initialization Test Case UML Diagram
The process of initialization consists of several steps, described below in the Call Flow.
The initial setup of the database includes the setup of tables and the content has been recorded in
the databases.
87
4.3.1 Test Case 01 – Initialization of the Environment
Test Case 01 Call Flow
As per Figure 26, we can identify the following steps in the process of initialization of
POC environment:
Step 0 – Initial setup of database and tables (see Section 4.4.2. for the Data Depository
information)
1. Students 1 and 2 register with the Rights Locker, which is a simple user database
with the addressing information.
2. Rights Locker registers Content 01 with both mobile operators. This is another
simple text-based message that depends on the format of the operator’s Content
Management System. There is often a proprietary API; usually a set of JSRs that
the content owner needs to follow. Ideally, this will be resolved by use of the
open standards. Now, more operators are using standardized Service Delivery
Platforms (SDP) that include Web Services and use standard protocols for content
registering. We prefer to use the second approach, as a University should not host
its own content portal, but the content should be hosted by every operator offering
the content delivery.
3. Data Depository registers the content with CP1 and CP2.
4. In this step, we consider a situation where Content 2 is only registered with only
one operator, and the content delivery to any mobile subscriber of the Operator 2
would not be possible. In this case, Content 02 will not be deliverable to the
student 2. On the other hand, to enable Content2 on the network 2, student 1
would have to “register” at the University support to “publish” Content 2 onto all
the related networks.
88
Data Depository information (Datadepodb)
Based on the data definitions, a table was created within the database, to contain the
content depository. This process can easily be automated, by using any available scripting tool.
A University would be able to provide the content description to an operator that, in return,
would use its own procedure to input the Data Content information. For the purpose of our POC,
we used SQL tools to fill in the database.
Field Type Null Default Comments MIME
Content varchar(20) No
Title varchar(20) No
Subject varchar(20) No
Description varchar(20) No
Type varchar(10) No
Source varchar(20) No
Relation varchar(15) No
Coverage varchar(15) No
Intellectual Property int(10) No
Creator varchar(20) No
Publisher varchar(20) No
Contributor varchar(20) No
RightsID int(10) No
Instantiation varchar(10) No
Date date No
89
Field Type Null Default Comments MIME
Format varchar(10) No
Identifier int(10) No
Language varchar(10) No
Table 7 - DataDepository Content Parameters
Table 7 gives a complete data profile that is used to create a message to an operator’s
Content Management infrastructure. As mentioned previously, the content registering with the
content provider is done using XML format and via a PHP script. Resulting file contains the
information from the data profile.
XML File Data descriptor
Resulting XML file is given below. As we mentioned previously, we use XML format,
which could be easily transformed into an HTML file and transfer over HTTP. Of course, it is
possible to use a PHP to send the file to a Content Management System.
The basic part of the XML file:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!--
-
- phpMyAdmin XML
- version 3.2.4
- http://www.phpmyadmin.net
-
- Host: localhost
- Generation Time: Jan 02, 2010 at 08:24 PM
- Server version: 5.1.41
- PHP Version: 5.3.1
-->
<!--
- Database: 'dmlddepodb'
90
-->
<dmlddepodb>
<!-- Table datadepodb -->
<datadepodb>
<Content>Content01</Content>
<Title>Content01 File</Title>
<Subject>POC test</Subject>
<Description>First Content File f</Description>
<Type>multimedia</Type>
<Source>http://localhost/AU_</Source>
<Relation>Content02</Relation>
<Coverage>Canada</Coverage>
<Intellectual_Property>1000</Intellectual_Property>
<Creator>vn</Creator>
<Publisher>vn</Publisher>
<Contributor>vn</Contributor>
<Rights>1001</Rights>
<Instantiation>Multi vers</Instantiation>
<Date>2009-12-27</Date>
<Format>video</Format>
<Identifier>1</Identifier>
<Language>eng</Language>
</datadepodb>
</dmlddepodb>
Content 2 (in the script we used Content02) can be sent using the same principle. We can
notice the same structure of the message.
<datadepodb>
<Content>Content02</Content>
<Title>Content02 File</Title>
<Subject>POC test</Subject>
<Description>Second Content File </Description>
<Relation>Content01</Relation>
<Coverage>Canada</Coverage>
<Intellectual_Property>1000</Intellectual_Property>
<Creator>vn</Creator>
<Publisher>vn</Publisher>
<Contributor>vn</Contributor>
<Rights>1001</Rights>
<Instantiation>Multi vers</Instantiation>
91
<Date>2009-12-27</Date>
<Format>Video</Format>
<Identifier>2</Identifier>
<Language>eng</Language>
</datadepodb>
This file may be sent by the Depository to a Content Operator, to describe all the learning
material that may be used for m-learning for a certain course. That way, the teacher can prepare
an m-learning package for a certain course and register all of them in a single file, as per our test.
Every time a student attempts to access or send any content defined in the Depository, the
operator will be able to route the signals properly to connect with the Depository for
authentication and routing information.
This file concludes the Data Definition tests, used for initialization of the system.
4.3.2 Test Case 02 – Superdistribution Test Case
As per our previous discussion, the Superdistribution case is executed with following
steps presented below, given by the UML Sequence diagram depicting the call flow. It is
important to highlight that we use text-based messages and file formats, with open standard
protocols to send the content and rights, as well as the license information.
Superdistribution is our major case, as it illustrates the need to have a good integration
environment, easy to setup and maintain and is using open standard protocols to communicate
with other objects in the content delivery infrastructure.
92
Figure 19 - Superdistribution Test Case UML Diagram
Test Case 02 Call Flow
This test assumes the success of the first test, initialization. After initializing the
environment, we have information about the students 1 and 2 in the RightsLocker (user profiles
for the whole class A – in our case, just two students), and the content information in the Data
Depository. Figure 19 illustrates the following steps:
1. Student 1 sends a request to CP1 to forward the protected file (by activating
an option in their content delivery portal, prepared for the users of “an
academic sub-portal” (which would be preconfigured, as per earlier
discussion). Student 01 does not need to know which network Student 2 is
using, as the call flow is always the same.
93
2. CP1 requests the Content lookup from the dMLRiD (if the content is
registered with the dMLRiD, it may be forwarded to another user) by a
lookup into the Content Depository. This step is illustrated by the Table
structure data view;
3. Depository acknowledges the Content01 back to the CP1;
4. Since the Rights are defined and the content profile is in the
DataDepository, the proper license for the Student 02 can be created by
CP2 based on the rights push. Depository acquires confirmation about the
content availability in the network 2 and gets a response (DB Lookup, or, in
our case, it is assumed that both content providers are participants in an
“academic content delivery system”);
5. Depository pushes the Content 1 rights to CP2, in our case a full license, as
the content is an open type standard academic content (open usage rights,
when respecting the copyrights). This step is demonstrated by a license
example;
6. Content 1 is delivered to Student 2.
Table structure
The resulting data structure, given by Table 8 below, is based on the Creative Commons
definitions, as we mentioned previously. The purpose of this table is to enable easier definition
of the new content that will be used in m-learning. In our case, we look at the two multimedia
objects. This case reflects the idea of having a standardized way to describe the learning material,
94
and to make its deposition into an operator’s content portal more unified experience. Table 8
illustrates the Step 2:
Table 8 - Data Structure
95
Example of a License
As per the illustration of the Step 5 in Test Case 2, this license is an ODRL-based license
that uses the CC-type license for learning content. The license can be created by our environment,
for example, to be sent to a translator that can transform it into any proprietary license that is
needed for a specific operator. We use it to illustrate the ability to handle open-standard type
license
The license used for Content files 1 and 2 is Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License (Available online at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ca/). It allows free content use, provided the
attribution to the owners and without modification. See Appendix 4 for the full License File, as
this section contains only a segment of the used license that was necessary for the analysis.
We can see the parameters mentioned previously of ODRL, as defining the license set.
The parameter “Rights” encapsulates the license.
Parameter Offer gives the type of license, and is defined by the parameter “Reference”,
which describes the license used in the ODRL context.
<o-ex:offer>
<o-ex:context>
<o-dd:reference>
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/
</o-dd:reference>
<o-dd:name>Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No
Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License</o-dd:name>
<o-dd:date>
<o-dd:fixed />
</o-dd:date>
</o-ex:context>
96
Parameters “Party” and “Asset” describe the file, with the Name and User ID associated
with it, respectively. The “Permission” part of the license file contains the parameters describing
the ways the file can be used, with the references to the license type and the constrains related to
the file.
<o-ex:permission
id="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/">
<o-dd:annotate />
<o-dd:aggregate />
<o-dd:backup />
<o-dd:delete />
<o-dd:display />
<o-dd:duplicate />
<o-dd:execute />
<o-dd:excerpt />
<o-dd:give />
<o-dd:install />
<o-dd:move />
<o-dd:print />
<o-dd:play />
<o-dd:verify />
<o-dd:restore />
<o-dd:uninstall />
<o-dd:save />
<o-ex:constraint>
<o-dd:transferPerm downstream="" idref=
"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/"
/>
</o-ex:constraint>
</o-ex:permission>
<o-ex:constraint>
<o-dd:purpose>
<o-ex:context>
<o-dd:uid />
<o-dd:name />
<o-dd:reference>
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/
</o-dd:reference>
<o-dd:remark />
</o-ex:context>
97
</o-dd:purpose>
</o-ex:constraint>
<o-ex:requirement>
<o-dd:attribution>
<o-ex:context>
<o-dd:remark />
<o-dd:reference />
</o-ex:context>
</o-dd:attribution>
<o-dd:accept>
<o-ex:context>
This license file represents also an example of how an academic m-learning environment
may help in promoting an open type of license, allowing the use of the learning material when
the copyrights are respected.
4.4. Summary
The supporting POC uses the case of Superdistribution as a test for the proposed multi-
network capable DRM framework. Identifying the proper test cases for this use case has led us to
define the configuration needed to enable this use case in the context of m-learning. We wanted
to provide a solution that will enable the transfer of the content not only vertically (University-
student), but also horizontally (student-student). The intention was to create an environment able
to communicate with both the multiple networks and multiple DRM systems.
We used the Use Case analysis to scope our POC in such a way to include only relevant
elements and communication, as well as the needed objects to demonstrate the proposed
framework enhancements. In the same way, we wanted to demonstrate the functions of the new
proposed element, Digital M-Learning Rights Depository. By that, we hoped to show that the
98
need for such an interoperability enabler could be resolved. Its flexible nature is shown by the
UML sequence diagrams and its communication capabilities by examples of the data profiles and
the licenses.
Another important goal of this Chapter was to provide as much standard and generic
solutions to the objects and elements as possible, to enable the development and implementation
of the proposed framework into various environments.
Chapter V contains a detailed discussion as well as the recommendation for the future
research.
99
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
As mentioned previously, today’s trend in digital social networking has been a cause of
the changes in usage models for mobile device users. Now, more interoperability and
collaboration is expected from any mobile service. From that perspective, we think that m-
learning needs to not only follow, but to lead the research in this area.
This research paper describes a new framework for Digital Rights Management, for use
in the Systems for m-learning to enhance the ability to define and manage the licensed learning
multimedia content. We believe that a new framework can improve handling of the licensed
content only by recognizing and building on the existing facts (industry needs, proprietary
solutions, multiple standards).
This research follows the Chiariglione’s (2007) argument that an acceptable and
successful DRM system must be:
• Flexible – Enable use of standards;
• Interoperable – Contains a well-defined specification;
• Open – Uses an Open Source Software;
• Future proof - Designed to include innovation (pg. 43)
In looking at our m-learning content delivery framework that includes DRM handling, we
can notice that some elements require more flexibility than others do. The constant development
of new multimedia formats, and codecs, alongside with the new types of content and devices,
100
create a changeable environment for each element involved in the content handling, such as data
storage, packagers, interfaces and license generators. In that sense, the proposed framework
indicated its hot spots, which are the points of its flexibility.
This need to develop a flexible solution is especially important within the academic
context and as well as in the context of use of open standard licenses and free, non-DRM
protected content. At the same time, DRM represents a way to ensure the copyrights of the
content owners are very important part of the full content delivery infrastructure in m-learning.
Our research project focused on the technical part of an m-learning system that deals with
the content rights management. The project did not aim to create a new Digital Rights
Management (DRM) or an m-learning system, or to build a new REL. Rather, its goal was to
better define the issues that surround the delivery mechanisms for different devices in m-learning,
by offering a new framework. Two main issues that we explored are the context of different
copyright needs and the context of different delivery methods across the mobile networks, to
offer the same experience to all students and actors in m-learning. This is based on the believe
that once we are able to deliver appropriate content for each device, while simultaneously
preventing the abuse of copyrighted works, we will be able to establish a fully modern m-
learning environment.
The interfaces between various elements of the m-learning environment are important
part of a framework that intends to enable functioning of a multi-DRM system capable of
delivering different learning multimedia content. As there no standard exists today related to the
copyright in the mobile world, there is no single interface capable of connecting different content
delivery systems.
101
Our proposed solution of the problem tackled the issue of the Rights Definition block
within the Content Delivery environment, dealing with the new level of abstraction needed to
handle the multi-DRM content relevant to the m-learning digital material. Within the Rights
Definition block, we looked into connecting the dependencies of the Rights Definitions, Offer
Management, Content Access and License Creation elements. This new, enhanced framework
includes the enhanced functionalities of the elements within the m-learning DRM framework,
changing the communication between the parts.
To present fully the Content Delivery architecture, the term “framework” was used in its
meaning of the software framework, as the collection of descriptions that defines a potential
solution that can be produced and implemented based on that set of descriptors.
There are two main differences between this research and the majority of the initiatives in
the industry or academy, as described in Chapter II. The first difference is a way our research
deals with the specific new issue of collaboration in the m-learning environment that is yet not
considered by the other initiatives. Our focus was on the interoperability and ability to share
multimedia files horizontally, between the members of a same class or a team within the class.
Current social trends of social networking (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other) have made
the collaboration and sharing a regular process in everyday life. Our research proposed a new
framework that should help in closing the gap that exists between the m-learning environment
and students’ everyday use of mobile devices.
The second important difference between this research and other mentioned initiatives
lies in the fact that our research looked at the University as the focal point of the content delivery
for m-learning. University students have their devices registered on different mobile networks,
102
just like other people in the same geographical area. There are several reasons why the modern
m-learning tools and learning mechanisms that include collaboration do not work for all students.
• Unless they all register in the same mobile network, they will not have the same access
rights to the content.
• They may have different delivery behavior defined in the networks.
• They are not able to share the content or send it to each other, while keeping the content
protected from outside usage (which may be important if a student group is working on a
project that should not be shared with outsiders).
This research proposes a way to define the rights outside of the networks, which would
enable all those sharing mechanisms needed for a modern m-learning environment. Furthermore,
the framework defined in this research has the flexibility to be open for any implementation of
the future service models.
The main goal of the project was to develop and describe a new framework for delivery
of the DRM-protected content in an m-learning environment. To achieve this, it was required
that we perform a detailed analysis of the DRM interoperability, and to define fully the elements
of a framework and needed use cases. In addition, it was required to choose the software tools to
identify the solution and to present the new DRM framework that would offer an additional level
of interoperability for an m-learning environment.
As this project consisted of the theoretical analysis followed by the required practical
enhancements, there were two separate aspects to this project:
103
The first aspect involved the determination of how to use the existing DRM-related
solutions and standards in the m-learning environment to enable the wider interoperability of
learning units of different multimedia types. The methodology to achieve this involved an
extensive process of literature review, aimed to determine significant factors in the existing or
suggested DRM solutions and frameworks, as well as to capture the complexity of m-learning
environment related to their differences or specifics comparing to the business environments.
The second aspect of the project involved the design and development of the proposed
framework for an interoperable DRM environment for m-learning, given by its architectural
elements in the forms of XML code for the specific elements, UML diagrams, detailed call flows
through the set of use cases.
The research solution is supported by the Proof of Concept (POC) demo tests done within
a simulated environment that demonstrated the logical call flow of the messages exchanged
between the hot spots of our proposed framework. The POC demo environment did not attempt
to recreate a fully functional mobile content delivery system, as that was out of scope of this
research. Instead, it contained logical units, to provide the POC type of demonstration with the
simulated instead of “real world” content. The POC results allowed us to construct the new
framework by using the standard software framework definition elements. As our intention was
to make the framework very flexible, the architecture does not presume the use of any
programming languages. Instead, it is given as a set of block architecture and UML sequence
diagrams, with the interfaces and objects defined using the XML schemes, only as the leads in
the development of a physical solution.
104
The analogy with the Object Oriented elements to describe the digital right models
determined the methodology and deliverables of this project. Similarly, as objects have attributes
defining possible actions on objects, as well as the possibility to define interfaces that describe
generic objects, we looked into the rights definition for the protected content as a way to describe
the actions that we could apply on the learning material.
Recognizing that this “objectization” of the digital content helps with the defining the
proper ways the DRM framework elements interact with each other, this research project used
the appropriate models and methodologies from the world of Object Oriented programming –
UML diagrams, call flows, and the architecture with the interfaces.
The DRM systems consist of the dual environment - the Client side (residing in a mobile
device) and the Server side. This project focused on the details of the Server-side only, as the
goal of the proposed framework is to offer the deeper level of interoperability, assuming that the
devices have a multitude of media codecs and associated DRM clients are already present in the
handset platform.
A detailed UML sequence diagrams for the multi-DRM use case scenarios define the way
the Content Rights are handled during the period of acquiring a license within the process of the
content delivery for multiple devices. When analyzing that way the Use Case for m-learning, it
was necessary for this research to explore possibility of defining an additional element in the m-
learning DRM framework, capable of communicating with different DRM systems. Such a new
element relies on external DRM systems to create the proper license, based on the defined set of
the content rights.
105
One of the most important Use Cases for this analysis was the case of Superdistribution
of the mobile content, a feature enabled by DRM. This functionality enables collaboration, by
allowing the students to exchange copyrighted material among them. In addition, as the content
is protected, it cannot be used without a proper license. Students who receive the protected
content and have a compliant device would be able to acquire a license, enabling the content use
on their own devices.
Considering the chosen Use Case of Online Vault, this project made certain assumptions.
By developing the Online Vault idea further, we created a new framework that better supports
the required functionality. Instead of having a single licensing authority, we proposed a new
object (element), for storing the information needed by a specific university – Digital M-
Learning Rights Depository (dMLRiD) that consists of two databases, Rights and Data
Depository and appropriate standard interfaces. While that allows for a possibility that the
multiple University Data Depositories for m-learning may exist, our proposed framework is
flexible enough to allow different implementations.
In order to make this project feasible we had to make several other assumptions. Instead
of creating complete Java classes for the proposed framework, we understand that the main
purpose of this research is helping to advance m-learning technologies. For that reason, we used
the concept of white hot spots in the proposed framework definitions, making the result more
flexible.
Furthermore, in the process of selecting the Proof of Concept simulations, we used the
analysis of the full DRM framework to select the appropriate granularity of our environment.
That resulted in creating the environment that does not deal with the actual content delivery, as
106
this function is left to mobile operators, which is one of the major differences of proposed
framework from other research.
Philosophy of this project was that we should use open standards both in m-learning and
with any learning tools whenever possible, to be able to eliminate the dependencies often
slowing down the acceptance of new modern methods in learning technologies. For that purpose,
we used ODRL as a rights language, Dublin Core metadata set and Creative Commons licenses,
assuming that the students’ collaboration products should be open for fair usage models.
Based on the POC, the major strength of the proposed framework is to focus better the
role of a university in the m-learning value chain – as a policy setter, not implementer. The new
framework introduces a critical new approach that while the University may have a Web portal
page for m-learning material, it should not host or provide the complete delivery service. Instead,
the University should let the content providers handle that role. The examples of this could be
found around the industry – where the content owners do not deliver the content by themselves,
but let the content providers fulfill that role, with the Mobile Operators in controlling role, as
they represent the ultimate owners of the mobile network.
The process of integration with an external DRM system is often very difficult, as many
of them use proprietary technologies. This was a reason why the proposed framework limits the
communication with external providers to standard messages and rights information exchange,
instead of sending the SOAP messages directly to appropriate applications within an external
DRM solution. Only by keeping the communication with an external element to the upper levels,
we can design a flexible solution, which is another strength of the proposed framework.
107
For the Use Cases, we analyzed a typical m-learning case in which students collaborating
within a university course, by exchanging the learning object. We assumed that the students
could be using either the same or the different mobile networks. It is important to understand that
from the functional perspective our proposed framework does not differentiate those two cases
(the same or a different network). This is another strength of the new framework – just to make
another layer in the logical structure of the framework. That allowed us to focus on the main
functionality of the environment, which is to enable the transfer of DRM protected files among
the students within the m-learning context.
As our research has had a limited scope, we had to focus on the major functionality
threads within the framework in order to describe fully the new aspects of the framework. As
mobile content delivery is a field that is developing very quickly, we hope that more complex
research initiatives will emerge soon, that will make use of our enhanced framework.
The limitations of the proposed framework would be in the line with the industry
activities, as some of the device manufacturers (Apple, RIM) are using proprietary delivery
services, which would make integration of the new elements complex. Another limitation of the
proposed framework would be the preferred use of the open standards and some of them are not
properly regulated (ODRL, OMA DRM, Marlin). The implementation of our framework is
another potential limitation, as for the full tests we need a collaboration of a University with the
mobile operators and content delivery providers.
The development of new online services, new and improved mobile networks, and the
dissipating differences between the home PCs and mobile devices have been influencing the
changed approach to content delivery. The unification of content delivery solutions could be one
108
of the ways were the future development might go. Fast wireless networks have bridged the gap
between the wire line and wireless services. The only remaining difference today is between the
devices – the availability of the applications and openness of environments. The Semantic Web
is bringing many standardized ways to enhance the services and that will certainly help with the
new research as well.
5.1 Implementation Recommendation
This sub section describes the methodology and recommendation for a possible
implementation of the proposed framework within the Athabasca University (AU). If the AU
decides to implement the proposed m-learning framework, the process of integration and the
implementation would have to contain the following steps:
1. The process of integration of the complete m-learning framework would have to start
with building the dMLRid. To do that, if we assume the existence of the m-learning
material, we would have to assure that the specific formats are defined for the data and
rights profiles, as described in this paper.
2. As mobile operators in Canada use a combination of the content aggregators and their
own content aggregation platforms, the next step would involve communication with the
operators. There is a need to define the interfaces and call flows that each operator is
using.
3. The next step would be to prepare the content to be assimilated in the processes of each
mobile operator for delivery in their mobile network. One possible process would be to
apply for the access to a mobile operator’s service platforms, with appropriate interfaces
information exchanged. Upon getting the access, AU would work with a content
109
aggregator in order to register the content with the mobile operator, to enable its delivery
across the mobile network.
4. The dMLRid would have to be integrated with the AU portal, to reuse the authentication
structure, if needed. There is no real need for users (students) to access to the dMLRid
directly, as the process of authentication would be handled in dual manner, by a mobile
operator infrastructure and by AU portal (or a content aggregator’s portal, if used).
5. The next is the process of integration of the call flow within the content delivery
procedure. That would depend on an operator’s procedures (an external content
aggregator, or an internal operator’s infrastructure). This would have to follow the
standards, as much as possible, to assure a fair usage models, needed for m-learning
objects.
6. AU would need to organize the closed group testing, to assure that the operators are
properly integrated within the m-learning framework.
7. Each new m-learning material would need to have an established complete process for
the registration and delivery across all the networks. AU may use an external content
aggregator for that purpose.
8. AU’s role, within the context of m-learning material delivery across the mobile networks,
from that point would become a policy setter. AU would be in a position to control the
ways m-learning material is used for all the students using mobile devices.
9. It is important to highlight that some mobile devices (iPhone, iPad, RIM devices) have
specific integration and content registration processes that can be followed in a similar
manner as other procedures.
110
Collaboration was a major case for this research, and we hope that the future research
will continue to explore the issues related to collaboration, as our learning material needs to start
reflecting the social trends. Our hope is that there will be an initiative for a larger project that
will be built based on our research, with the full integration of the environment within the mobile
networks and a university. For that to happen, it would be necessary to build a consensus and
raise awareness for the need to explore more ways to offer a better m-learning environment that
would be flexible enough to accept new models of use and adapt faster to changes. A university
would need to organize the project with major mobile operators in the area, possibly even
include a content provider in the project development, to assure the full coverage of the research
initiative. Involving proprietary providers such as Apple and RIM would also bring new
possibilities in that research.
We hope that our research would be helpful in the much-needed process of developing a
modern m-learning (and e-learning) environment capable of responding to the constant
technological changes.
111
REFERENCES
Arnab, A., and Hutchison, A. (2004). Digital Rights Management - An overview of
Current Challenges and Solutions. Presented at Information Security South Africa (ISSA)
Conference 2004.
Ahmed, I., and Sadiq, M. J. (2006). A study of fairness of information distribution and
utilization in a mobile agent-based adaptive information service system. Informatica, 30, 3.
p.365(7). Retrieved on September, 2009, from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://0-
find.galegroup.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca:80/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE
Becker, E., Buhse, W., Günnewig, D., and Rump, N. (Eds). (2003). Digital Rights
Management Technological, Economic, Legal and Political Aspects. Pg 4. Springer Verlag.
Berlin 2003. LNCS Volume 2770
Bar-El H., Y. Weiss. DRM on Open Platforms. (2004). Retrieved on October 2009 from
http://www.hbarel.com/publications/DRM_On_Open_Platforms.pdf_
Chowdhury, D. (2007). Project outline: Learning Object Repository Network. Australian
Flexible Learning Framework. Retrieved on November 2009 from
http://pre2009.flexiblelearning.net.au/flx/go/home/projects/pid/268
Communication from The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The
European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions On Creative
Content Online In The Single Market. Retrieved on July 2009 from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007DC0836:EN:NOT
Coral Consortium. (2007). Forming a Coral Ecosystem. Retrieved on December 2008
from http://www.coral-interop.org.
Chiariglione, L. (2007). Digital Rights Management The enabler of information society.
Retrieved on Jan 2010 online at http://www.CEDEO.net
112
Chiariglione , L. (2010). What is Chillout. Retrieved on February 2010 from
http://chillout.dmpf.org/
Dalziel, J. (2002). Reflections on the COLIS (Collaborative Online Learning and
Information Systems) Demonstrator project and the "Learning Object Lifecycle". In A.
Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young & T. Clear (Eds), Winds of Change in the Sea of Learning:
Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in
Learning in Tertiary Education. Auckland, New Zealand: UNITEC Institute of Technology
DRM Definition, National Institute for Standards and Technology. Retrieved on March
2008 from http://www.nist.gov/
EICTA (European Information, Communications and Consumer Electronics Technology
Industry Association), Retrieved online on October 2007 from http://www.europe4drm.com/
Gartner’s Report - Competitive Landscape: Mobile Devices, Worldwide, 4Q09 and 2009.
(2010). Retrieved on February 2010 from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=910112
Goh, T. (2007). A framework for multiplatform e-learning systems. Phd Thesis Massey
University, New Zealand
Markiewicz, M. E. and Lucena, C. J.P. (2001). Object Oriented Framework Development.
ACM Crosroads. Retreived on October 2009 from www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds7-
4/frameworks.html
Mostakhdemin-Hosseini, A. and Tuimala, J. (2005). Mobile Learning Framework.
Proceedings IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2005, Malta, pp 203-207.
Iannella, R. (2001). Digital Rights Management (DRM) Architectures. D-Lib Magazine,
June 2001, Volume 7 Number 6. Retrieved on September 2009 from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june01/iannella/06iannella.html
Intertrust Technologies Corp. Available online at http://www.intertrust.com
113
Lee E., Kang J., Choi J., Yang J. (2006). Topic-Specific Web Content Adaptation to
Mobile Devices. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web
Intelligence. Pages: 845-848. Retrieved on September 2007 from http://0-
portal.acm.org.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/citation.cfm?id=1249120&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=
35020096&CFTOKEN=32267967#
Lessig, L. (2004). Free Culture. The Penguin Press: Penguin Group, USA
Lonsdale, P., Baber, C., Sharples, M., and Arvanitis, T. (2003). A context-awareness
architecture for facilitating mobile learning. In Jill Attewell and Carol Savill-Smith (Eds.)
Learning with mobile devices. Research and development. London: Learning and Skills
Development Agency.
Lucchi, N. (2006). Digital Media & Intellectual Property: Management of Rights and
Consumer Protection in a Comparative Analysis. Springer: Germany, New York, NY.
The Marlin Trust Management Organization (MTMO). Available online at
http://www.marlin-trust.com/index.html
Maronas, X., Rodriguez, E., Delgado, J. (2009). An Architecture For The Interoperability
Between Rights Expression Languages Based On XACML. 7th International Workshop for
Technical, Economic and Legal Aspects of Business Models for Virtual Goods incorporating the
5th International ODRL Workshop, Nancy, 22 Sep 2009, France. Retrieved on November 2009
from http://www.virtualgoods.org/2009/29_VirtualGoods2009Book.pdf
Melendez-Juarbe, Hiram. (2009).DRM Interoperability. Boston University journal of
Science and Technology Law, L 181. Retrieved on November 2009 from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1313321
MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group), Available online at http://www.mpeg.org
OASIS eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) TC. Retrieved on
September 2009 from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xacml
114
The ODRL Initiative, Available online at http://odrl.net/
Open Mobile Alliance. Available online at http://www.openmobilealliance.org
Open Rights Group. Available online at http://www.openrightsgroup.org
Pramod A. Jamkhedkar, Gregory L. Heileman. (2009) Digital rights management
architectures, Computers & Electrical Engineering, Volume 35, Issue 2, Circuits and Systems for
Real-Time Security and Copyright Protection of Multimedia. Pages 376-394, ISSN 0045-7906,
DOI: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2008.06.012. Available online at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V25-4T7D8D6-
1/2/eb4dcc62224e0c512ae1fc1ad50f0fe7
Pree, W. (2000). Hot-Spot-Driven Framework Development. Fayad, M., Schmidt, D.,
Johnson, R. (Eds). Building Application Frameworks: Object-Oriented Foundations of
Framework Design. Wiley & Sons: New York City.
Ricknas, M. (2010). Study: Android, IPhone Fastest-growing Smartphone Platforms. IDG
News Service. Retrieved on March 2010 from
http://www.pcworld.com/article/190027/study_android_iphone_fastestgrowing_smartphone_plat
forms.html
Rosenblatt, B., Trippe, W., and Mooney, S. (2002). Digital Rights Management: Business
and Technology. M&T Books: New York, NY
Riehle, D., (2000). Framework Design: A Role Modeling Approach. Ph.D. Thesis. Zürich,
Switzerland, ETH Zürich. Retrieved on January 2008 from http://dirkriehle.com/computer-
science/research/dissertation
Taban G., Cardenas A., Gligor, V. (2006). Towards Secure and Interoperable DRM
Architectures. Sixth ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management (DRM 2006). Retrieved on
November 2009 from http://www.flacp.fujitsulabs.com/~cardenas/
115
Valimaki, Mikko and Oksanen, Ville. (2006). DRM Interoperability and Intellectual
Property Policy in Europe. European Intellectual Property Review, Vol. 26, No. 11, pp. 562-568,
2006. Retrieved on January 2010 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1261643
Van Tassel, J. (2006). Digital Rights Management: Protecting and Monetizing Content
(NAB Executive Technology Briefings). Focal Press: Oxford UK.
Secure Digital Container (SDC). Available online at http://www.digicont.com
Stone, A. (2003). Designing scalable, effective mobile learning for multiple technologies.
In Jill Attewell and Carol Savill-Smith (Eds.). Learning with mobile devices. Research and
development. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Wilson, S., Olivier, B., Jeyes, S., Powell, A. (2004). A Technical Framework to Support
e-Learning, on The E-Learning Framework. Retrieved on October 2009 from
http://www.elframework.org/general
XrML - eXtensible rights Markup Language, Available online at
http://www.xrml.org/index.asp
Zhang D. (2007). Web content adaptation for mobile handheld devices. Communications
of the ACM, 50(2), Pages 75-79. Retrieved on September 2007 from The ACM Digital Library
at: http://0-portal.acm.org.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/citation.cfm?doid=1216016.1216024
A
Appendix 1 – POC Demo – SQL Command Example
SQL command to insert first two content file descriptions into the DataDepo, for the
Content Depository:
$sql = "INSERT INTO `dmlddepodb`.`datadepodb` (`Content`, `Title`,
`Subject`, `Description`, `Type`, `Source`, `Relation`, `Coverage`,
`Intellectual Property`, `Creator`, `Publisher`, `Contributor`,
`Rights`, `Instantiation`, `Date`, `Format`, `Identifier`,
`Language`) VALUES (\'Content01\', \'Content01 File\', \'POC test\',
\'First Content File for the POC demo\', \'multimedia\',
\'http://localhost/AU_POC/content01.abc\', \'Content02\',
\'Canada\', \'1000\', \'vn\', \'vn\', \'vn\', \'1001\', \'Multi
versions\', \'2009-12-27\', \'video\', \'01\', \'eng\'),
(\'Content02\', \'Content02 File\', \'POC test\', \'Second Content
File for the POC demo\', \'multimedia\',
\'http://localhost/AU_POC/content02.abc\', \'Content01\',
\'Canada\', \'1000\', \'vn\', \'vn\', \'vn\', \'1001\', \'Multi
versions\', \'2009-12-27\', \'Video\', \'02\', \'eng\');";
B
Appendix 2 - POC Demo – Database Parameters
Indexes
Keyname Type Unique Packed Field Cardinality Collation Null Comment
PRIMARY BTREE Yes No Title 2 A
Identifier BTREE Yes No Identifier 2 A
Format BTREE No No Format 0 A
Subject BTREE No No Subject 0 A
Creator BTREE No No Creator 0 A
Publisher BTREE No No Publisher 0 A
Contributor BTREE No No Contributor 0 A
Space usage:
Type Usage
Data 312 B
Index 8,192 B
Total 8,504 B
Row Statistics:
Statements Value
Format dynamic
Rows 2
Row length ø 156
Row size ø 4,252 B
Creation Jan 02, 2010 at 02:56 PM
Last update Jan 02, 2010 at 03:15 PM
Last check Jan 02, 2010 at 02:56 PM
C
Appendix 3 - POC Demo – Example of a License
The illustration of the Step 5 in Test Case 2, this license is an ODRL-based license using
the CC-type license for learning content. The license can be created by our environment, to be
served to a translator into any proprietary license, needed for a specific operator.
When used in the test Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative
Works 2.5 Canada License, for Contents 01 and 02 – it allows for free content use, provided the
attribution to the owners and without modification:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- New document created with EditiX at Sun Jan 02 03:51:17 EST 2010 -
->
<!-- vn dMLRD License for the Content 01 done at Jan 02 -->
<o-ex:rights xmlns:o-ex="http://odrl.net/1.1/ODRL-EX"
xmlns:o-dd="http://odrl.net/1.1/ODRL-DD"
xmlns="http://localhost/dMLRD/DRM">
<o-ex:offer>
<o-ex:context>
<o-dd:reference>
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/
</o-dd:reference>
<o-dd:name>Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No
Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License</o-dd:name>
<o-dd:date>
<o-dd:fixed />
</o-dd:date>
</o-ex:context>
<o-ex:party>
<o-ex:context>
<o-dd:reference />
<o-dd:name>dmLRD Generic License</o-dd:name>
</o-ex:context>
D
<o-ex:rightsholder>
<o-dd:percentage />
</o-ex:rightsholder>
</o-ex:party>
<o-ex:asset>
<o-ex:context>
<o-dd:uid />
</o-ex:context>
</o-ex:asset>
<o-ex:permission
id="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/">
<o-dd:annotate />
<o-dd:aggregate />
<o-dd:backup />
<o-dd:delete />
<o-dd:display />
<o-dd:duplicate />
<o-dd:execute />
<o-dd:excerpt />
<o-dd:give />
<o-dd:install />
<o-dd:move />
<o-dd:print />
<o-dd:play />
<o-dd:verify />
<o-dd:restore />
<o-dd:uninstall />
<o-dd:save />
<o-ex:constraint>
<o-dd:transferPerm downstream="" idref=
"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/"
/>
</o-ex:constraint>
</o-ex:permission>
<o-ex:constraint>
<o-dd:purpose>
<o-ex:context>
<o-dd:uid />
<o-dd:name />
<o-dd:reference>
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/
</o-dd:reference>
<o-dd:remark />
</o-ex:context>
E
</o-dd:purpose>
</o-ex:constraint>
<o-ex:requirement>
<o-dd:attribution>
<o-ex:context>
<o-dd:remark />
<o-dd:reference />
</o-ex:context>
</o-dd:attribution>
<o-dd:accept>
<o-ex:context>
<o-dd:remark>User agrees to use this object
under the terms and conditions stipulated
in the Creative Commons licence found at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/
</o-dd:remark>
<o-dd:reference>
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/
</o-dd:reference>
</o-ex:context>
</o-dd:accept>
</o-ex:requirement>
</o-ex:offer>
</o-ex:rights>
F
Appendix 4 - POC Demo – Originating Call Flows
When designing the simulator, we used the existing call flows of the OMA 2 DRM
standard, as the fundamental idea of the m-learning content delivery is to keep the license issuer
separated from the content. That allows us to transfer the content between two different DRM
systems, enabling, the interoperability in the environment, not only in the individual level.
The starting call flows used are:
OMA 2 DRM Call Flow 01 - Download over the air to deliver DRM Content and
Rights Objects
G
OMA 2 DRM Combined Delivery of DRM Content and Rights Object