Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt
Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi> Thu, 22 December 2011 10:36 UTC
Return-Path: <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
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 CBB4F21F8B58 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:36:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_20=-0.74, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MANGLED_STOP=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 07r7sB4R5--s for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi (smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi [128.214.173.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055DA21F8B4A for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.214.91.90] (kkkl25.lib.helsinki.fi [128.214.91.90]) by smtp-rs1.it.helsinki.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBMAHJsU029273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:17:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4EF303AF.3030807@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:17:19 +0200
From: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <201110312002.VAA11600@TR-Sys.de> <4EC25AC6.9060404@helsinki.fi> <4EEBB2B6.5090801@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4EEBB2B6.5090801@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt
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: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:36:42 -0000
Hello all, Plenty of comments below (sorry). Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> We have not restarted the discussion of what URNs can be applied to. In >> 7.1 (bottom of the page 16) we say that URNs serve as identifiers for >> concrete and abstract objects that have network accessible instances >> and/or metadata. In short, URNs must be actionable one way or another; >> resolution should provide some kind of result. > > Really? As far as I can see, this idea is not present in RFC 2141. Has > something changed since then that would compel us to say that URNs must > be actionable in the way you describe? I don't think that anything has changed (or it wasn't my intention). From my point of view, if a resource has a network accessible instance (or manifestation, as we librarians call them) and/or metadata related to these instances, then URLs will provide temporary access, and URNs something more: persistent access to the resource or surrogates such as descriptive metadata. I used the term actionable to refer to anything that the URN resolution can deliver. > >> This specification is OK, especially if we keep in mind that the >> abstract object itself can be a metadata record. For instance, some >> national libraries routinely describe two variants of a printed book >> (paperback & hardcover, for instance) in the same metadata record. If >> record has an NBN, one may argue that it identifies the record, not the >> books. From the URN resolution process point of view this makes sense, >> because the URN will resolve to the metadata record. >> >> As the RFC2141bis already says, URNs may also be assigned to works, >> which are abstract objects having 0-n manifestations (there are plenty >> of works that have been lost, and many have reached us in truncated form). > > Juha, that is all quite interesting. Can you propose text changes that > would incorporate those insights? Yes. We might add something like this into 2141bis or elsewhere: Resources identified with URNs may be abstract (e.g. works such as Shakespeare's Hamlet) or embodied in some physical form (PDF/A version of the Finnish translation of Hamlet). An abstract entity may have 0-n digital manifestations in the Internet (and other kind of manifestations in the physical world). Since any digital manifestation will be rendered unusable in a few decades because file formats get outdated, all digital manifestations of a work should be linked to one another using their URNs. This will help the user to find a usable version, even if the identified manifestation can no longer be interpreted by the software at hand. Resources may be simple (a single file or a fragment thereof) or complex (a set of inter-related files). For large sets surrogates may replace the delivery of the actual resources. Generally, services available shall depend both on the identified resources and the target systems. For works lacking physical representations in the Internet, descriptive metadata and location information can be provided. A long term preservation system can supply technical metadata about the file format of the identified manifestation of the work. A publisher's digital asset management system may be able to supply rights metadata about the identified resource, even if the resource itself is not accessible. (In the future, URN resolution services should enable the users to pinpoint the kind of metadata they need.) > >> In chapter 2 <query> is discussed in the bottom of page 9 & top of the >> page 10. We should refer here to RFC2483 (which specifies the resolution >> services) and use an example which is based on an existing service. The >> current example is a bit puzzling; for the time being it is not possible >> to specify the type of metadata wanted because no such service exists. > > Could you clarify whether your statement refers to that particular > example or to resolution services as such? I refer to the example in 2141bis. But my comment also makes the point that we should revise the URN services in such a way that the user can specify the type of metadata desired (the point made above in parenthesis). > >> A note should be added, saying that the services nailed down in RFC2483 >> are not sufficient. For instance, it is not possible to specify what >> type of metadata is needed (descriptive / administrative / structural) >> and in which format (there are plenty of formats for descriptive >> metadata, such as MARC21 or Dublin Core). RFC2483 refers to URC (Uniform >> Resource Characteristics) which was never implemented in practice. (As >> an aside, there are plenty of other reasons for updating that RFC.) > > Isn't that a matter for RFC 2483 (or 2483bis), not the core URN spec? > There is no necessary connection between URNs and resolution, I think. There is no need to add the note if revision of RFC 2483 is added to the charter of the URNBIS WG ;-). My intention is to complete the first version of 2483bis in January and send it as a private contribution. URNs and resolution services are parts of the URN system. Without services URN assignment would not make sense. But technically the two are not interconnected since we can keep on adding new services without tweaking the URNs themselves. In the resolution process the service request must never be part of the URN itself (although we can use <query> to piggyback service parameters). >> On page 10, two options for supporting fragment identifiers are >> specified. I am not sure this dichotomy works. Method a) (fragment >> identifiers are assigned individually) is of course OK. But if fragment >> identifiers are generally applicable (method b), then there is no need >> to repeat the specification at the namespace level. Assuming that >> fragments can be used with PDF documents, then the same principles >> should apply across all namespaces which do approve fragment usage. > > Please clarify. Do you mean the syntax of fragment identifiers, or the > semantics? I think the semantics differ based on the media type of the > resource that might be retrieved, as we've discussed. If a file format (for instance, PDF) has well undertood rules as regards URI fragment usage, then these rules should apply in all namespaces where identifiers can be assigned to PDF fragments. In the namespace registration request all that is needed is to tell that fragment identification is allowed. > > See Section 3.5 of RFC 3986: > > The fragment's format and resolution is therefore > dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved > representation, even though such a retrieval is only performed if the > URI is dereferenced. As an aside, I don't know how far we can get with media types (2046) only. Fragment usage is dependent on file formats. Rules for text/plain are not the same as the rules for OOXML text documents. And the identified resources may encompass multiple media types; for instance, an e-book in EPUB 3.0 may contain the text of the book itself, sound recording of an interview of the author, an trailer of a film based on the book, and so on. It remains to be seen how such bundles will be identified (although my gut feeling is that each EPUB 3 book may consume a whole set of identfiers, one for its each constituent part). >> Second, most standard identifiers have well known syntax. ISSN has 8 >> characters, ISBN either 10 or 13, and ISTC 16. Parsing urn:issn is easy; >> after 8 characters you are done, even if the next character is not from >> the excluded set. Any namespace specific rules for parsing and lexical >> equivalence must be expressed in the namespace registration. > > How is this matter *not* addressed by Appendix C of RFC 3986? Appendix C is based on the idea that some kind of delimiting characters are used. I do admit that this will often be the case. But this does not need to happen. For instance, somebody may add a home made fragment into URN:ISBN. Such fragment should not be there, but no method described in Appendix C now would enable us to drop it. If there are well understood rules on how NSS should look like in a given namespace (examples of this include urn:issn or urn:isbn), then we can parse namespace specific strings in ways not foreseen in RFC 3986. Not only do we always know where the string ends, we can also check if the string is correct (if the identifier contains a check digit). >> In chapter 5. (top of the page 15), examples should include <query> and >> <fragment>. As the former is not part of the URN, <query> must be >> ignored in the analysis, while <fragment> must not. > > Do you mean that all of the examples should include those components, or > that some examples should be added? I mean that examples with query and fragment should be added. >> Terminological comment >> >> We speak (almost) interchangeably about objects which have instances, or >> resources which have versions. We may also refer either to resource >> characteristics or object metadata, or use library related concepts of >> work, expression and manifestation. >> >> Consolidation of the terminology used would make the documents easier to >> understand. I suggest that we carry out such a task between the authors >> before the next versions of these I-Ds are published. > > That sounds like a good idea. Do you have a plan for releasing the next > version of the specification? No dates have been fixed yet. I should be able to send revised versions of 3187 and 3188 to Alfred Hönes quite soon (that being the first priority), but we have not discussed when he would be able to publish them and the next version of 2141bis. At this stage it would be highly useful to get feedback from other people on the list. I do recognize that we are just revising existing documents, and the revisions we have made should not be controversial, but actually confirming that the texts are fine would give us a more solid basis to move on - and show to the IETF that the work relevant. And it would be even better to receive criticism to help us in improving the documents. Best regards, Juha > > Thanks! > > Peter > >> All the best, >> >> Juha >> >> Alfred � wrote: >>> The IETF I-D Submission Tool <internet-drafts at ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax >>>> Author(s) : Alfred Hoenes >>>> Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt >>>> Pages : 28 >>>> Date : 2011-10-31 >>>> >>>> Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent, >>>> location-independent, resource identifiers. This document serves as >>>> the foundation of the 'urn' URI Scheme according to RFC 3986 and sets >>>> forward the canonical syntax for URNs, which subdivides URNs into >>>> "namespaces". A discussion of both existing legacy and new >>>> namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and transmission are >>>> presented. Finally, there is a discussion of URN equivalence and how >>>> to determine it. This document supersedes RFC 2141. >>>> >>>> The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration >>>> documents are currently set forth in RFC 3406, which is also being >>>> updated by a companion, revised specification dubbed RFC 3406bis. >>>> >>>> >>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt >>>> >>>> >>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>> >>>> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: >>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> urn mailing list >>>> urn@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn >>> >>> [[ speaking as the document editor ]] >>> >>> This draft version contains many updates, >>> as outlined in the new Appendix D.5 of the draft. >>> >>> Most importantly, based on the list discussion, the open issue >>> regarding the NSS character repertoire is now regarded closed; >>> there have been no concerns raised against now allowing "&" and "~" >>> in the NSS syntax, and hence bringing it in alignment with RFC 3986. >>> Hence, much of the material from s2.2 has been moved to a new >>> Appendix (C), and Appendix B (previously: C) has been filled in now. >>> Please note also that the previous Appendix A has been moved to the >>> end of the memo and now has become Appendix E, which has caused >>> some renumbering of the more persistent Appendices of the draft. >>> >>> Due to time constraints and technical issues I had in the past with >>> Internet/email access, the elaborations on the fragment identifier >>> issues have not yet been fully aligned with the vast amount of list >>> discussion we had in the past regarding this topic. I regard this >>> topic as not yet finally closed, and will bring my considerations >>> to the list a.s.a.p. >>> >>> So, in order to bring forward the discussion on the draft, please >>> currently focus on the other open issues tagged in (editorial) Notes >>> inside the draft, which have not received much comments so far. >>> In particular, we should hopefully be able to close the NID syntax >>> issues discussed in section 2.1 soon, with your help! >>> >>> I plan to submit another revision of this draft during the IETF 82 >>> week, once draft submission is open again. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Alfred. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> urn mailing list >>> urn@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn >>> > -- Juha Hakala Senior advisor, standardisation and IT The National Library of Finland P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503), FIN-00014 Helsinki University Email juha.hakala@helsinki.fi, tel +358 50 382 7678
- [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-ur… internet-drafts
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Juha Hakala
- [urn] naming and the necessity of resolution Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] naming and the necessity of resolution Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] naming and the necessity of resolution Svensson, Lars
- Re: [urn] naming and the necessity of resolution Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Svensson, Lars
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bi… Peter Saint-Andre