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

["Palek, Stephanie" <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,


I approve as well and have no further comments.


All the best,

Stephanie

________________________________
Von: urn <[e-mail]> im Auftrag von Hakala, Juha E <[e-mail]>
Gesendet: Freitag, 4. August 2023 07:11:15
An: Peter Saint-Andre; KA Urnnan; [e-mail]
Betreff: Re: [urn] Revised registration request for URN:NAN

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 Or in other words unique, unpublished and often non-literary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
_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn