[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
- [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-is… SM
- Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bi… Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bi… Larry Masinter
- Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bi… Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bi… SM
- Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bi… SM
- Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bi… SM