Re: [urn] Revised registration request for URN:NAN

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

The NAN namespace has been added to the registry.

On 8/4/23 8:19 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Thank you, Stephanie and Juha.
> 
> I will ask IANA to add this namespace to the registry.
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 8/4/23 1:05 AM, Palek, Stephanie wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> I approve as well and have no further comments.
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Von:* urn <[e-mail]> im Auftrag von Hakala, Juha E 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 4. August 2023 07:11:15
>> *An:* Peter Saint-Andre; KA Urnnan; [e-mail]
>> *Betreff:* Re: [urn] Revised registration request for URN:NAN
>> Hello,
>>
>> I approve of this registration, and look forward to the co-operation 
>> between the National Library and the National Archive in the 
>> implementation of this new identifier system.
>>
>> Juha
>>
>> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
>> Lähettäjä: urn <[e-mail]> Puolesta Peter Saint-Andre
>> Lähetetty: torstai 3. elokuuta 2023 21.31
>> Vastaanottaja: KA Urnnan <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Aihe: Re: [urn] Revised registration request for URN:NAN
>>
>> Hello Lauri,
>>
>> Thank you for this note and for the updated registration request. I 
>> approve of registration. Once we hear back from other members of the 
>> expert review team, I can work with you on a few small editorial 
>> matters and ask IANA to complete the registration.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 8/1/23 9:59 AM, KA Urnnan wrote:
>>> Dear recipients,
>>>
>>> Thank you all for an elightening conversation and on-point 
>>> corrections to the registration request, and apologies for the 
>>> tardiness of my reply; I was on vacation, and due to technical 
>>> equipment failure was unable to access my work email. I have amended 
>>> the request according to the helpful suggestions. Please find  the 
>>> resubmission attached.
>>>
>>> On a general note, I could try to conceptualize the difference 
>>> between NBN and NAN. The main difference stems from the identified 
>>> material itself, and reflects the well established practices of 
>>> division of responsibility between libraries and archives. While the 
>>> NBN is assigned to published material that does not have 
>>> publisher-issued identifier and concerns mainly works of 
>>> literary/bookish nature (e.g. master’s theses, ephemera), the NAN 
>>> will be assigned to archival material. Or in other words unique, 
>>> unpublished and often non-literary (in the strict sense) primary 
>>> sources (e.g. letters, charters, minutes, manuscripts, maps, 
>>> drawings, etc.). While NBN could be assigned to e.g. a self-published 
>>> autobiography lacking an ISBN, and it would identify the (in FRBR 
>>> terms) work-expression-manifestation -levels, NANs could be assigned 
>>> to the work’s authorial working manuscript and notes associated to 
>>> it, and similar item-level objects (again in FRBR-terms). In other 
>>> words, there should be not much conceptual or factual overlap in the 
>>> material that NBN and NAN refer to. The other main difference lies in 
>>> the organisation of materials. Archival sources are organised into 
>>> hierarchical structure consisting of archival entities, series and 
>>> units, all of which can be given unique identifiers. Thus the 
>>> resource which is identified with a NAN number is very much different 
>>> from that identified with a NBN number.
>>>
>>> Mainly for these conceptual reasons the NBN as identifier for 
>>> archival material is out of the question. It has well established and 
>>> defined usage which does not lend itself for use with archival sources.
>>> Assigning NBN’s for our material would only create confusion in the 
>>> field. The only main exception (that I can think of) to the division 
>>> of material described above concerns some older historical sources, 
>>> mainly of literary nature (e.g. late medieval manuscripts and 
>>> letters). Such material can be found in both libraries’ and archives’ 
>>> collections for historical reasons. Yet, this material has only 
>>> rarely been assigned any NBN:s, and the overlap remains therefore 
>>> minimal in terms of magnitude as well as conceptually. Since the 
>>> practices between archives and libaries are well established, I found 
>>> it unnecessary to list this as a restriction in the registration. 
>>> While it leaves open the definition of pertinent material, this might 
>>> also mean that URN:NAN could help to fill in the gaps left by URN:NBN 
>>> in the identification of archival collections in libraries. It also 
>>> leaves the door open for national archives to implement their own 
>>> practices as they see fit. Hopefully this attempt of clarification 
>>> answers at least some of the questions raised.
>>>
>>> Regarding the informational RFC: at the moment I would personally see 
>>> it as an overextension of preliminary definitions. Once URN:NAN has 
>>> been implemented by us and at least a few other national archives, 
>>> however, I believe it would be definitely useful to write one. At 
>>> that point in time we would have experience of usage, understanding 
>>> of the most pertinent questions, borderline cases and problems 
>>> encountered, and would be the better able to formulate necessary 
>>> clarifications to using URN:NAN.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to hearing from you,
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Lauri Leinonen
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> urn mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn 
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> urn mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn 
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>
>> _______________________________________________
>> urn mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn 
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>
>