Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

SM,
thanks for the quick review.
Inline below are my personal comments as the document editor.
Juha and Maarit might want to follow up on specifics.


> 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?

Yes, this (and a couple of other) "MAY" are not appropriate usage of
RFC 2114 language.  A lot of these indeed should be downcased; my
apologies for the editorial oversights.

According to my understanding, the last sentence above should better
say:

   "In such cases, it will likely be possible to find the digital copy
    with the ISBN of the printed original."


> In Section 4.1:
>
>    "Each product form (e.g. hardcover, paperback, PDF) MUST have its
>     own ISBN."
>
> Why is this a MUST?

That's a requirement from ISO 2108.
(Section 4.1 and its subsections make essential content of the
ISO standard readily available to the reader of this memo.)


> 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.

Sorry, editorial omission; all instances of "CAN" in this section
will be downcased in the next draft version; similarly, many
instances of "MAY" in this section need to be downcased or replaced
by "might".


>    "Each product form MUST have a separate ISBN, but digital
>     manifestation will not be long-lived."
>
> Why is this a MUST?

See above -- as per ISO 2108.


>    "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?

Suggested replacement:

     "Some users may prefer a modern manifestation although it might not
      have the original look and feel, while other users want the
      original manifestation that is authentic but might require digital
      archaeology for access."

Is that more reasonable?


>    "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?

Suggested replacement text:

     "...  Usage if "URN:ISBN will support information architectures
      that enable persistent access to the relevant intellectual content
      (work), independent of its form, although ..."


> 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.

Due to the persistency of assigned ISNB-10 and derived UNRs, most
text regarding ISBN-10 cannot be considered strictly "historical"
or "background" -- it is still of practical relevance for users
and resolution services.  Therefore IMHO separation of specifics
from RFC 3187 into a separate section does not make much sense;
the IANA registration of the namespace still needs to cover both
versions of ISBNs.

Similarly, placing examples into an appendix will likely not be
of much help for readers not very acquainted with bibliographic
identifiers, and would perhaps violate the requirements from
RFC 3406 and its planned successor, the rfc3406bis draft.


> Regards,
> -sm


Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+