Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:23:42 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Using National Bibliography Numbers as Uniform Resource Names
	Author(s)       : Juha Hakala
                          Alfred Hoenes
	Filename        : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04.txt
	Pages           : 20
	Date            : 2012-10-22

Abstract:
   National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs, are used by the national
   libraries and other organizations in order to identify various
   resources such as digitized monographs.  Generally, NBNs are applied
   to resources that do not have an established (standard) identifier
   system of their own.

   A URN (Uniform Resource Names) namespace for NBNs was established in
   2001 in RFC 3188.  Since then, several European national libraries
   have implemented URN:NBN-based systems.

   This document replaces RFC 3188 and defines how NBNs can be supported
   within the updated URN framework.  A revised namespace registration
   (version 4) compliant to the RFC 3406bis draft is included.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:30:40 +0200 (MESZ)

URNbis folks,  (again speaking as the draft editor)

we have arrived at uploading a new version of the URN:NBN draft,
which accommodates discussion since the last draft version in
spring and the implications from the "A way forward ..." changes
to the rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis draft versions already submitted
this week.

Juha did the bulk of the work, but again, I should be blamed for
all the nasty nits and flaws still buried in the document.
Juha will speak up and supply additional information ASAP.

For a quick summary of changes, please see below.

Text parts of this memo related to query directives will need
to be revisited after consolidation with NBN stakeholders;
we hope that there will be progress in this matter soon, once
the expected discussion on the core documents settles.

Please study this draft in detail and send draft text related
comments.  The plan is to issue one or two additional draft
versions (also depending on progress with the two core documents)
before proceeding to WG Last Call for this document.

> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This new draft version contains the following incremental change
summary as an Appendix:

-------- snip --------

B.5.  draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-03 to -04

   -  specification of how to use URN query and fragment part based on
      the revised versions of rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis;
   -  various textual improvements and clarifications, including:
   -  textual alignments with rfc3187bis draft vers. -03;
   -  multiple editorial fixes and improvements.

-------- snip --------

Another Appendiz of the I-D contains the updated summary of essential
changes since RFC 3188:

-------- snip --------

Appendix A.  Significant Changes from RFC 3188

   Numerous clarifications based on a decade of experience with
   RFC 3188.

   Non-ISO 3166 (country code) based NBNs have been removed due to lack
   of usage.

   In accordance with established practice, the whole NBN prefix is now
   declared case-insensitive.

   Updated URN:NBN Namespace Registration template for IANA; whole
   document adapted to new URN Syntax document, RFC 2141bis, and new URN
   Namespace Registration document, RFC 3406bis.

   Use of query directives and fragment parts with this Namespace is now
   specified, in accordance with the aforementioned RFCs.

-------- snip --------

Best regards,
  Alfred.

~

---

From: Juha Hakala <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:36:12 +0300

Hello,

The new namespace registrations for URN:NBN and URN:ISBN have benefited 
a lot from revisions Alfred has made to the I-Ds he is responsible of. 
Both ISBN and NBN communities are likely to find e.g. query and fragment 
valuable, and the latest versions of 2141bis and 3406bis provide a solid 
basis for specifying how these URI features are to be used within a 
particular URI namespace.

Given the usefulness of query and fragment in the PID context it is 
obvious that people will start using them in URNs (in fact, I know one 
project which is already using fragment). If the URN syntax 
specification and the namespace registration guidelines say nothing 
about how to use these features (or whether they can be used at all), 
there can be a lot of confusion. People might use e.g. fragment when it 
is not appropriate, or reinvent functionality available via query. 
Therefore it would've been impractical to use Peter's slim URN syntax 
variant as the starting point of these namespace registrations.

More generally, concerning this issue brought up by SM:

> I'll be candid. I took a quick look at the draft. About a third of the 
> text in draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 is non-technical material. 
> When I compare this draft with the one submitted by Peter Saint-Andre, 
> I am inclined to pick the latter. 

I support Alfred's point that many people who'll read URN-related RFCs 
will not be familiar with IETF in general and the history of URNs in 
particular, and it is important to provide them some background 
information. A particularly important target group are people 
representing identifier systems which may or may not register 
namespaces. The key RFCs may be the only source of information at hand 
when the process begins, and if these documents provide just the very 
minimum of what is needed, some important namespace registrations may 
never be produced. I have written namespace registration requests using 
both the old, "skeletal" RFC 2141 and the new RFC2141bis, and IMHO the 
new, more exhaustive document was more helpful. I am a librarian, not an 
engineer, but writing a namespace registration request requires, first 
and foremost, familiarity with the identifier standard and its usage.

All the best,

Juha

On 22.10.2012 14:30, Alfred � wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn

-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor

  The National Library of Finland
  P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503)
  FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  tel +358 9 191 44293