headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 16 Dec 2011 22:05
Favicon

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt

<hat type='individual'/>

My apologies for the delayed reply. I'm still catching up after IETF 82.

On 11/15/11 5:27 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:
> Hello Alfred; all,
> 
> Thank you for submitting a new, improved version of RFC2141bis.
> 
> I have a few comments to the draft. Most concern the text itself; some
> are more generic issues which are just implied in the document.
> 
> In chapter 1.2 (Background) we quote RFC1738:
> 
> o  Persistence: It is intended that the lifetime of a URN be
>    permanent.  That is, the URN will be globally unique forever, and
>    may well be used as a reference to a resource well beyond the
>    lifetime of the resource it identifies or of any naming authority
>    involved in the assignment of its name.
> 
> Instances of digital resources do have a short life time. After a few
> decades we may no longer have software capable of interpreting the bits.
> Metadata about the resource (including technical metadata which may help
> digital archaeologists) may however still be available. And if migration
> has been used as a preservation strategy, there will be other instances
> of the resource which are still accessible.
> 
> Therefore should may adjust the purpose / function of a URN (the first
> bullet point in 1.2) as expressed in RFC 2141 slightly, to say that URNs
> are used for recognition, or for access to diverse metadata (formerly
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 16 Dec 2011 22:36
Favicon

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt

<hat type='individual'/>

On 11/17/11 3:18 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:
> Hello Alfred; all,
> 
> Below is my take on the open issues listed by Alfred, plus some
> additional comments.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> URN is a resource identifier; therefore the end of the last sentence of
> the first para could be changed into ... make available generic and
> persistent network-based resolution services for the identified
> resources (documents, artifacts and other objects, and metadata related
> to them).

See the message I just sent about 2141bis. I think this claim is not
exactly uncontroversial.

> Chapter 2
> 
> Statement "identifiers are never assigned to more than one resource"
> needs some tuning. Resources themselves may be static or dynamic (as
> pointed out in page 19). The identified resource may be a metadata
> record which describes a collection which contains a number of objects.
> The important thing is that the resolution process itself is clear;
> there must always be one and only one entity to resolve.
> 
> Suggested new formulation:
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 16 Dec 2011 22:56
Favicon

Re: Of RFC3187bis, RFC3188bis and namespace registrations in general

<hat type='individual'/>

On 10/13/11 5:22 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have written updated versions of
> 
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn
> 
> Some editorial help will be needed to publish them as Internet drafts;
> what I have now is two XML texts that need to be polished/converted to
> I-Ds. But I can send them either to the list (if that is OK) or anybody
> who is interested to review them.

Are those the versions that were published here?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01

> Since these texts rely on unpublished new version of rfc2141bis that
> myself and Alfred Hoenes have been working on, I'd rather wait until the
> next version of rfc2141bis has been made available before publishing
> them as I-Ds. But the WG is, like Peter pointed out in his message a
> week ago, behind schedule. And as the fact that we have been working on
> new versions of the I-Ds has not been made clear in the messages sent to
> the list, it is easy to get an impression that nothing much is happening
> in this particular WG. So if need be I am prepared to make some
> shortcuts here.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
SM | 17 Dec 2011 11:07

Re: Of RFC3187bis, RFC3188bis and namespace registrations in general

At 13:56 16-12-2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>I'd welcome that discussion.

Seven messages were posted to this mailing list since November 
1.  Two of the messages were about a workshop.  Three of them were 
from Peter Saint-Andre as an individual.

According to the working group charter, the milestone for 
rfc3187bis-isbn-urn and rfc3188bis-nbn-urn was February 2011.  On 
October 3, the Responsible AD commented on the working group progress 
[1].  This working group was formed on November 23, 2011.  It has not 
been able to produce an RFC in over a year.

Is it premature to ask for a consensus call on closing this working group? :-)

Regards,
-sm

P.S. I understand the work is important.  However, if there isn't any 
discussion about the drafts, it denotes a lack of interest in getting 
the drafts published as RFCs.

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01626.html
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 20 Dec 2011 18:55
Favicon

Re: Of RFC3187bis, RFC3188bis and namespace registrations in general

<hat type='AD'/>

On 12/17/11 3:07 AM, SM wrote:
> At 13:56 16-12-2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> I'd welcome that discussion.
> 
> Seven messages were posted to this mailing list since November 1.  Two
> of the messages were about a workshop.  Three of them were from Peter
> Saint-Andre as an individual.

SM, although I too am concerned about the lack of involvement, the
choice of November 1 as the cutoff date for your measurements is a bit
misleading, because there was a flurry of activity (at least from Juha
and Alfred) in October. However, the lack of activity since then is not
encouraging.

Peter

--

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Juha Hakala | 21 Dec 2011 13:02
Picon
Picon

Re: Of RFC3187bis, RFC3188bis and namespace registrations in general

Hello Peter; all,

Please see some responses to your questions below. (Sorry, this message 
is quite long.)

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> <hat type='individual'/>
> 
> On 10/13/11 5:22 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have written updated versions of
>>
>> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
>> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn
>>
>> Some editorial help will be needed to publish them as Internet drafts;
>> what I have now is two XML texts that need to be polished/converted to
>> I-Ds. But I can send them either to the list (if that is OK) or anybody
>> who is interested to review them.
> 
> Are those the versions that were published here?
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01

Yes.

While preparing these I-Ds (and 2141bis & 3406bis) for publication,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Andy Newton | 21 Dec 2011 15:28
Picon

Re: Of RFC3187bis, RFC3188bis and namespace registrations in general

Juha (and the WG),

One of the problems I see with these discussions is that these threads intertwine noted issues with the
documents and larger architectural or philosophical issues. That can get confusing.

I would like to ask you, as a document editor, and the working group if we should use the issue tracker for
dealing with document issues so that they do not get lost in the larger debates. Comments?

As for the larger issues, we can discuss them and after there is consensus on how to move forward with
addressing those issues will be able to knock them out through documents.

What say you?

-andy

On Dec 21, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:

> Hello Peter; all,
> 
> Please see some responses to your questions below. (Sorry, this message is quite long.)
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> <hat type='individual'/>
>> On 10/13/11 5:22 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I have written updated versions of
>>> 
>>> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
>>> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Peter Saint-Andre | 21 Dec 2011 17:53
Favicon

Re: Of RFC3187bis, RFC3188bis and namespace registrations in general

<hat type='AD'/>

On 12/21/11 7:28 AM, Andy Newton wrote:
> Juha (and the WG),
> 
> One of the problems I see with these discussions is that these
> threads intertwine noted issues with the documents and larger
> architectural or philosophical issues. That can get confusing.
> 
> I would like to ask you, as a document editor, and the working group
> if we should use the issue tracker for dealing with document issues
> so that they do not get lost in the larger debates. Comments?
> 
> As for the larger issues, we can discuss them and after there is
> consensus on how to move forward with addressing those issues will be
> able to knock them out through documents.
> 
> What say you?
> 
> -andy

Andy, I think that would indeed be helpful. Although the more
"philosophical" issues are interesting and important, we also need to
focus the discussion down to specific text proposals to be incorporated
into the specificuations under consideration. Using the issue tracker
might help move us in that direction.

Peter

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
SM | 21 Dec 2011 19:08

Re: Of RFC3187bis, RFC3188bis and namespace registrations in general

Hi Peter,
At 09:55 20-12-2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>SM, although I too am concerned about the lack of involvement, the
>choice of November 1 as the cutoff date for your measurements is a bit
>misleading, because there was a flurry of activity (at least from Juha

I agree that the choice of the cutoff date for the measurement is 
misleading.  It helps to have somebody else (e.g. as you did in this 
case) discuss about the comments and drafts to catch mistakes.

Regards,
-sm
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Juha Hakala | 22 Dec 2011 11:17
Picon
Picon

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt

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,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |

Gmane