ROpdebee
commented
2 years ago https://apimstfop0acm0vf5m3w0rf1.blob.core.windows.net/content/MediaLibrary/Documents/SPE_20191118_ISWC_JSON_FileFormat.pdf may be useful for reference.
Also, having some idea of the internal data would possibly allow us to do a more robust cleanup of LatinNet codes, as the returned data includes a "sourcedb". I have a hunch that for codes that have the LatinNet suffix, the sourcedb is going to be different than for codes without the suffix, i.e. the sourcedb for codes with the suffix will be for the LatinNet hub and the sourcedb for codes without it, for the agencies themselves. If that's the case, we could change the cleanup so that it only removes the suffix for the LatinNet source DB.
This is probably even better as a reference: https://cisaciswcuat.portal.azure-api.net/
ISWCNet generally only displays ISWCs, creators, titles, performers (if known) and agency work codes. It's all merged together too, so credits from one agency may get merged together with conflicting credits from a different agency. Looking at the network log, one can see that their API actually returns much more detailed information, including credits per separate agency and publishers. The latter don't get displayed at all by default.
Perhaps we can patch something like
XMLHttpRequestorJSON.parseon ISWCNet so we can "spy" on those responses and display more detailed information. Especially publishers and their IPIs could be useful, since there aren't that many online repertoires that display that information, and when they do, the information is often limited and only displays those that are affiliated with that agency. Displaying their IPIs more prominently would make it easier to add IPIs to publishers.On top of that, having some way to view credits separately for each agency would be useful to double-check some of the data. Agencies may have conflicting information (example), so being able to see what each agency says about the work could be useful.