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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 19 October 2011 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2B621F8AFE for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.337
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.262, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DKCZsUtjHD90 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69E721F8AF6 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9JAaYjO025763 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1319020599; bh=pBt1V1VIWfIqGXBGEWaF0G58FHkzXavbZeHTLv3wDV8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=4Utnqn6djT4npVxGOBNfKf2wegEQCoUOnKX1PwNXVXXJbTebPIRPBqzcdup+PwbZz JtIkFZu+s/RmdJ0ur0Z08orAZCzTdLqudzxfQvwrIbEaa6dxxFwFMqKg8+F9poF1pP fsURKsuRBsMCdOnA82molDE8oCmhL6o+emSwWOys=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1319020599; bh=pBt1V1VIWfIqGXBGEWaF0G58FHkzXavbZeHTLv3wDV8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=D/+fhXWUcI4QXRV+yyZhbOHCuTiTlbolJ9wEymTL9EygK/HlmB5TFnJ1E19H731UL qmFNoIe4QNtJ+xY9DQ/nJ9XQFPIBby2heuyzs7L7YPKFw7gP3NxKMRXKg4PLFmp4E5 86dlza8eNdnz9juplX08o9LyA3OqPGgo4jPoUhL8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019023731.0aa22fe0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:13:20 -0700
To: urn@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:36:43 -0000

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