[urn] Some more thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02

Bengt Neiss <bengt.neiss@kb.se> Wed, 01 February 2012 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=0378f007d0=bengt.neiss@kb.se>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AAC11E8469 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:18:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.419
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.630, BAYES_50=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhn0cwD+APws for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mspkb002.kb.se (mspkb002.kb.se []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECA911E8386 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:18:45 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: mspkb002.kb.se header.from=bengt.neiss@kb.se; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
From: Bengt Neiss <bengt.neiss@kb.se>
To: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Some more thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02
Thread-Index: AczgwLqh60MhIECpQ0CpKzlknPVnhw==
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:18:33 +0000
Message-ID: <F52230A186DA59469E8E21CF80FE6D4D0F23F851@SRVVM305.kb.local>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: sv-SE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F52230A186DA59469E8E21CF80FE6D4D0F23F851SRVVM305kblocal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: none
Subject: [urn] Some more thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02
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, 01 Feb 2012 14:18:48 -0000

Hello all..

Some more thoughts on the text..

1.       Page 6, first paragraph, last sentence says the following - "All manifestations of a resource SHOULD be interlinked, for example via providing persistent links in the descriptive metadata". I think we need to define or explain what we mean with the term "persistent link" in this document. It's a term that, I believe, have a slightly different meaning in different user communities.

2.       Page 13, a paragraph near the end states that "All two-letter codes are reserved by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency for either existing and possible future ISO country codes (or for private use)". I think this paragraph is somewhat redundant and could be removed due to the fact that in the formal declaration for the NSS we state that the "iso_cc" part is "country code as assigned by ISO 3166" and as I understand it two-letter codes (that aren't ISO 3166 codes) are allowed as a "subspc", like urn:nbn:se:kb:abc-123.

3.       On page 7, second paragraph from top has a sentence that says "In these cases , the resolution process SHOULD link the URN:NBN to a URI belonging to an object such as a text file containing a chapter of a book". I think the word "link" should be "resolve" in this sentence. Is the term "URI" the correct one to use or should it be changed to "URL" possibly.

4.       I think there is a need to revise the use of the acronym NBN in the text. Sometimes it refers to National Bibliography Number in a literal sense and sometimes, it seems to me, being used in the meaning URN:NBN. It could be a source for confusion for readers. It might be that my English is not good enough though...so...

5.       I think there is an error in chapter 1.2, Background properties of URNs, in "draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01" where it states that the properties found in RFC 1738 etc. Shouldn't it be RFC 1737.

6.       One more thing - should text-proposals be sent to the list or directly to the editor(s)?



Bengt Neiss
Kungl. Biblioteket / National Library of Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)10 709 35 41