Subject: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:13:20 -0700

Hello,

I read draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01 as this working group 
has been inactive.

In Section 3.2:

   "As a rule, a digitized book does not get an ISBN, especially if the
    original printed book did not have one.  Instead, national
    bibliography numbers are often used for identification.  In such
    cases the digital copy MAY be found with the ISBN of the
    printed original."

Why is there a MAY in the last sentence?

In Section 4.1:

   "Each product form (e.g. hardcover, paperback, PDF) MUST have its
    own ISBN."

Why is this a MUST?

In Section 4.3.2:

   "A large union catalogue, such as WorldCat maintained by OCLC
    [OCLC-WC] CAN be used to complement the resolution services provided
    in the national level, or as the default service, if no national
    services exist or are known to the registry from which the query
    originates."

If I recall correctly, the CAN has already been pointed out.

   "Each product form MUST have a separate ISBN, but digital
    manifestation will not be long-lived."

Why is this a MUST?

   "Some users MAY prefer a modern manifestation although it MAY not
    have the original look and feel, while other users want the
    original manifestation which is authentic but MAY require digital
    archaeology for access."

Why are there MAYs in there?

   "URN:ISBN SHOULD support information architectures
    which enable persistent access to the relevant intellectual content
   (work), independent of its form"

Why is this a SHOULD?

The draft convey the ideas.  The text is readable.  The document 
proposes a means of encoding ISBNs within the URN framework.  I 
suggest focusing on that by providing clear steps on how that 
works.  Put the historical details in a separate section.  If you 
overload the reader with too much background information, the person 
may find it difficult to identify the parts that require coding 
attention.  Examples could be moved to an appendix.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:00:38 +0200 (MESZ)

SM,
thanks for the quick review.
Inline below are my personal comments as the document editor.
Juha and Maarit might want to follow up on specifics.

> Why is there a MAY in the last sentence?

Yes, this (and a couple of other) "MAY" are not appropriate usage of
RFC 2114 language.  A lot of these indeed should be downcased; my
apologies for the editorial oversights.

According to my understanding, the last sentence above should better
say:

   "In such cases, it will likely be possible to find the digital copy
    with the ISBN of the printed original."

>    "Each product form (e.g. hardcover, paperback, PDF) MUST have its

That's a requirement from ISO 2108.
(Section 4.1 and its subsections make essential content of the
ISO standard readily available to the reader of this memo.)

> If I recall correctly, the CAN has already been pointed out.

Sorry, editorial omission; all instances of "CAN" in this section
will be downcased in the next draft version; similarly, many
instances of "MAY" in this section need to be downcased or replaced
by "might".

>     manifestation will not be long-lived."

See above -- as per ISO 2108.

> Why are there MAYs in there?

Suggested replacement:

     "Some users may prefer a modern manifestation although it might not
      have the original look and feel, while other users want the
      original manifestation that is authentic but might require digital
      archaeology for access."

Is that more reasonable?

>    (work), independent of its form"

Suggested replacement text:

     "...  Usage if "URN:ISBN will support information architectures
      that enable persistent access to the relevant intellectual content
      (work), independent of its form, although ..."

> attention.  Examples could be moved to an appendix.

Due to the persistency of assigned ISNB-10 and derived UNRs, most
text regarding ISBN-10 cannot be considered strictly "historical"
or "background" -- it is still of practical relevance for users
and resolution services.  Therefore IMHO separation of specifics
from RFC 3187 into a separate section does not make much sense;
the IANA registration of the namespace still needs to cover both
versions of ISBNs.

Similarly, placing examples into an appendix will likely not be
of much help for readers not very acquainted with bibliographic
identifiers, and would perhaps violate the requirements from
RFC 3406 and its planned successor, the rfc3406bis draft.

> -sm

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:32:22 -0700

> That's a requirement from ISO 2108.

I think this is a specification for URNs, and the conformance requirements should apply to the URNs.  What you're saying here is a statement about some OTHER standard, which I might write as:

"ISO 2108 requires that each product form (hardback, paperback, PDF) have its own ISBN."

This is just a statement of a fact about another standard, and URNs need to function even in situations that don't exactly follow that requirement, for example, as mentioned, cases where people have digitized a hardcopy book from their own collection, but not assigned a different ISBN.  

I think you should avoid using normative language for anything other than what a conforming URN and URN processing agent MUST/SHOULD/MAY do in order to reach interoperability between communication agents using URNs in their communication.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

---

From: Juha Hakala <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:14:38 +0300

Hello,

> I think you should avoid using normative language for anything other than what a conforming URN and URN processing agent MUST/SHOULD/MAY do in order to reach interoperability between communication…

As the author of the text, it was not clear to me where to draw the 
line. The current version of RFC3187bis makes it as explicit as possible 
that in the URN:ISBN namespace, every URN must conform to the ISO 2108. 
That is, every namespace specific string must be an ISBN; nothing more, 
nothing less. In addition, I have included some ISBN rules of assignment 
into the draft as MUSTs.

But I have no problem changing the draft so that the normative language 
is only used in the way Larry suggests. Detailed guidance on how to use 
ISBNs in the URN system can be produced separately, for instance in 
co-operation with the ISBN international centre.

Similar changes should be made to 3188bis as well. But there there is no 
external standard to refer to, so IMHO RFC3188bis should provide more 
information than RFC3187bis as regards what MUST/SHOULD/MAY be done.

Best regards,

Juha
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
> 

-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor, standardisation and IT

  The National Library of Finland
  P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503), FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Email [email-masked], tel +358 50 382 7678

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:26:18 -0700

Hi Larry,
At 18:32 19-10-2011, Larry Masinter wrote:
>I think this is a specification for URNs, and the conformance 
>requirements should apply to the URNs.  What you're saying here is a 
>statement about some OTHER standard, which I

That is the point I was trying to make.

>  might write as:

Yes.  I suggest writing the specification from an IETF implementation 
perspective and not an ISO perspective.

>This is just a statement of a fact about another standard, and URNs 
>need to function even in situations that don't exactly follow that 
>requirement, for example, as mentioned, cases where people have 
>digitized a hardcopy book from their own collection, but not 
>assigned a different ISBN.

Yes.

>I think you should avoid using normative language for anything other 
>than what a conforming URN and URN processing agent MUST/SHOULD/MAY 
>do in order to reach interoperability between communication agents 
>using URNs in their communication.

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:23:16 -0700

Hi Juha,
At 22:14 19-10-2011, Juha Hakala wrote:
>line. The current

If I do not agree with the text you wrote, the practice is that I 
should suggest alternate text. :-)

>  version of RFC3187bis makes it as explicit as possible that in the 
> URN:ISBN namespace, every URN must conform to the ISO 2108. That 
> is, every namespace specific string must be an ISBN; nothing more, 
> nothing less. In addition, I have included some ISBN rules of 
> assignment into the draft as MUSTs.

If you spell out things clearly, as you did above, it is easier for the reader.

>But I have no problem changing the draft so that the normative 
>language is only used in the way Larry suggests. Detailed guidance 
>on how to use ISBNs in the URN system can be produced separately, 
>for instance in co-operation with the ISBN international centre.

I haven't looked into this.  I suggest taking up the matter with the 
WG chairs and see what they would like to do.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:59:48 -0700

Hi Alfred,

>apologies for the editorial oversights.

Don't worry about the editorial oversight. :-)

>     with the ISBN of the printed original."

I suggest:

   In such cases, it is likely that digital copy can be found by using the
   ISBN of the printed book.

>ISO standard readily available to the reader of this memo.)

Larry Masinter suggested alternative text.  He also commented about 
the usage of "MUST".  Drop me a note and I'll expand on why the 
question was asked if it is not clear.

>See above -- as per ISO 2108.

Quoting text from Larry:

   "ISO 2108 requires that each product form (hardback, paperback, PDF) have
    its own ISBN."

The above avoids the RFC 2119 keyword while still stating the ISO 
2108 requirement.

Yes.

Coming back to "MAY", it's an optional feature in an 
implementation.  The text explains a user's preference and it does 
not have anything to do with an implementation.

>       (work), independent of its form, although ..."

That sounds better.

>the IANA registration of the namespace still needs to cover both

I don't feel strongly about this.  I suggest getting more people to 
review the draft to gauge clarity.

>RFC 3406 and its planned successor, the rfc3406bis draft.

Ok.

Regards,
-sm