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

["Hakala, Juha E" <[e-mail]>]

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 Or in other words unique, unpublished and often non-literary 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

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn