Subject: Re: NID registration for ISBN

From: Rob Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:26:40 -0800

Juha,

If I understand it correctly, the resolution model described
in your document is based on a centralized model.   A centrally
controlled resolver service will dispatch to resolvers at
national bibliographic services based on ISBN country/group
prefix.  For example, ISBNs beginning 85-, 961- and 99917-
dispatch to the national bibliographic services of Brazil,
Slovenia and Brunei, respectively.  If the national bibliographic
service is unable to resolve the identifier, a global service
such as WorldCat.

Although the international network of national bibliographic
services has an important role to play, this model ignores
an existing well-resourced network whose longstanding role
has been the provision of primary bibliographic service: the
network of academic and research libraries.

If the first step of the resolution model could somehow use
a local bibliographic service, which would then be backed up
by national and global services, I believe there would be a
number of benefits.
  (1)  The local service could highlight local availability,
       e.g., books on the shelf, books at a campus bookstore,
       interlibrary loan options and so on.  In short, the
       "appropriate copy" problem or "contextualization" would
       be solved.
  (2)  International resolution "traffic" would be reduced.
  (3)  Redundancy and reliability would be increased.

We have implemented this model in our work with an alternative
URN framework that we have put forward to the IETF as "bibliographic
protocol".   In deference to the URN WG, we have used the
scheme name "bibp:" instead of "urn:", but the identification
concept is basically the same.

We are excited about this work because the resolution technology
underlying bibp is deployed world-wide and stable at this time.

In brief, a bibp link of the form bibp:ISBN/0-13-877846-9 resolves to
http://bibhost/bibp1.0/resolve?usin=ISBN/0-13-877846-9
if a local server exists at http://bibhost/ and is providing bibp
service.   It is a standard part of DNS technology that a
relative domain name bibhost is interpreted according to
the local domain of the client (or a client-specified search
domain).   For example, users at sfu.ca would have service
from bibhost.sfu.ca and users at yale.edu would have service
from bibhost.yale.edu.

If local bibhost service does not exist, the model backs up to
a document-specified citehost (if it exists) or to a known global
server.

For immediate deployment of bibp links, an author need only
include a short bit of JavaScript in the web page; see
our BibP Linking 1-2-3 document at http://usin.org/linking-1-2-3.html .
This enables bibp service for popular web clients (see
http://usin.org/software/clients/ ).  JavaScript is a short-term
solution until bibp-aware clients become deployed.

As a consequence of this model, it is very easy for a library
to install a bibp service that immediately becomes effective
for the local domain.     For example, bibhost.cs.sfu.ca currently
provides a crude prototype based on a bibp-Z39.50 gateway.
Try http://bibhost.cs.sfu.ca/bibp1.0/resolve?usin=ISBN/0-13-021119-2
(or any other ISBN) to see it in operation.

You can also see what our prototype global service does at
http://usin.org/bibp1.0/resolve?usin=ISBN/0-13-021119-2
Currently it does validation and parsing of the ISBN structure
and attempts error correction for any single digit insertions
deletions, replacements or transpositions.

The above URLs represent different resolved forms of the bibp
link bibp:ISBN/0-13-021119-2.  We have a rudimentary demo
available at http://usin.org/ that allows you to experiment
with different server combinations for BibP:ISBN linking.

Although our servers are crude prototypes at this stage, what is
really important is the resolution model.  It works.

Robert D. Cameron
Professor of Computing Science
Simon Fraser University

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:38:27 -0500

> network of academic and research libraries.

The URN framework has always assumed that there would be many
namespaces where 'non-authoritative' (from the assignment standpoint)
services would also provide resolution services. The different
being that the DDDS based resolution mechanism was specifically
for finding the _authoritative_ service. The algorithm always
stated that the first step of URN resolution was to ask some
locally preferred entity first.

>   (3)  Redundancy and reliability would be increased.

IMHO, this would be valuable but as an adjunct service (probably
based on some of the contextualization/"appropriate copy" discussions
that have been had recently). Both of these models should work
together. But I think its valuable and proper that the _authoritative_
resolution system follow the ISBN assignment delegation rules.
It may come to pass that everyone uses some contextualized resolution
mechanism that actually asks the local bibliographic services
but IMHO, its not _authoritative_.

> concept is basically the same.

But the difference is that the bibp delegation model isn't authoritative.
There are times when I want to know what my local library or bookstore
thinks about a particular ISBN number (like when I'm buying it). But
other times when I want to know what the ISBN organization actually
thinks (like when I'm referencing it in a bibliography) and for that
answer it _must_ be authoritative....

> from bibhost.sfu.ca and users at yale.edu would have service

Assuming one has his/her DNS search path configured correctly but
that's an operational issue. IMHO, the better approach would be
to generalize this and make it a local service discovery problem...
I.e. the discussions we had at the c15n BOF showed that indeed this
area is very interesting and a general, standard solution is needed
but it also found that it needed to be explicit both on the users
part and on the link authors part....

So I think we're in agreement except that I don't think this service
belongs as part of the 'official' ISBN URN namespace resolution process
and thus shouldn't be part of Juha's registration document....

-MM

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling        |      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions       |          www.lp.org          |  [email-masked]

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:43:35 -0500

Howdy,

Juha's document describes how ISBN uses the standards discussed
in this working group.  Whatever else they may do with ISBN
URNs is up to them.

This working group set out to define a specific set of globally-
resolvable identifiers & infrastructure, and that is the scope of
its work.  This does not preclude the value of other approaches
to resolution, but arguments of "that's a flawed idea, you should
do X instead" are out of scope.

Finally, I appreciate that you have made this group aware of the
work you've done, and various of us have offered you technical
input.  However, at this point I view your actions as "advertizing"
your system, that's out of scope for this mailing list as well.

As Michael mentioned, there has been interest in contextualized
resolution as a separate work effort.  That will provide the relevant
forum for discussing much of what you're getting at.

Leslie.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Days used to be longer."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:16:09 -0500

> forum for discussing much of what you're getting at.

And that forum can be found at:
http://lists.research.netsol.com/pipermail/c15n/

And the subscription info is at:
http://lists.research.netsol.com/mailman/listinfo/c15n

-MM

---

From: Tim Kindberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:23:04 -0800

>http://lists.research.netsol.com/mailman/listinfo/c15n

Thanks for that links. We've been working on contextual resolution as part
of our 'CoolTown' system (http://cooltown.hp.com/): we map identifiers
found on physical entities to contextually relevant URLs.

This is a good opportunity for me to try to spell out what has been
bemusing me about the URN/URI community, looked at from the point of view
of our work. When I started to work on resolution I naturally looked at
what the URN community has been doing, but I tripped over the first
assumption I came across: that URNs are 'location independent identifiers'.
That is, the goal seems to be a system that would give the same
'authoritative' (the URN community's word) answer to everyone, every time,
wherever they are.

That's the opposite of what seems to us to be the makings of a useful
system, given our assumptions. Here's an example to illustrate our thinking:

Suppose I, you (another shopper) and a supermarket employee all pick up
identical cans of beans in the supermarket, and suppose we all scan the
barcode on the can with a wirelessly connected device to look at web pages
about the beans (this is something we routinely do in CoolTown).

We think that the chances are that those three users would want to see
different results. I want to avoid genetically modified (GM) foods so I
want to see appropriate links to check the beans' status. You suffer from
diabetes, so you want to see diabetic links about the beans. The employee
wants to do a Safeway price or stock check. Actually, we may all want to
see a link to the Safeway page, in addition to the other specialised pages
I've mentioned.

And if we were back in our homes instead of the supermarket, then we may
want to see yet another set of pages when we scan the beans' barcode: say,
a page enabling us to put that item on our web shopping list.

In CoolTown we have ways to pick up the local context (Safeway, the home);
but users also configure their devices to use more generally applicable
contexts (e.g. GM foods and diabetes).

One name -- let's call it upca:78996800002 -- has bindings in multiple
naming contexts: in each case, to a record containing a URL (we're
considering Xlink).

Which of the bindings is 'authoritative'? Our answer is: they are all
equally authoritative. Bindings derive from organisations that assert them
(Safeway stores, The Campaign against GM foods, the Finnish Diabetes
society, Tim Kindberg's household). Those organisations can digitally sign
them to make them literally authoritative.

What about the fact that the name contains 'upca' -- doesn't that signify
some 'extra' authority for the manufacturer? Our answer is: No, not
_binding_ authority. There's a basic distinction between the authority to
mint names and the authority to bind them to resources, which rarely seems
to be made. The UPC people have devised a way of ensuring that
manufacturers can mint names for their products without fear of collision.
Those manufacturers then bind those names (a) literally, physically as part
of the fabric products (which probably would count as 'authoritative' in
court) and (b) virtually, to virtual resources about the products.

Should that mean that The Campaign Against GM foods _cannot_ also bind the
UPC code to their own virtual resources, or that, if they do so, their
binding has a lesser status?

I can understand why Heinz might wish that virtual binding didn't exist or
was deprecated, for commercial reasons. But there's no logical objection
that they can raise.

At least, not as long as we satisfy the requirement that no-one will get
confused about whose binding is whose. And that problem can be solved by
making bindings first-class, standard, digitally signed objects.

I sometimes wonder whether having UPC codes physically bound to objects or
whether DNS has got a lot of people hooked on the idea that authority to
mint names and authority to bind them always go together. Those two things
coexist for understandable reasons at Heinz and in DNS. But the next
generation of Internet naming and binding systems should separate the two.

Tim.

Tim Kindberg

internet & mobile systems lab  hewlett-packard laboratories
1501 page mill road, ms 1u-17
palo alto
ca 94304-1126
usa

[email-masked]
voice +1 650 857 5609
fax +1 650 857 2358

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:53:29 -0500

Tim,

Top-down authority is one piece in the puzzle -- there are at least
times when you want it. There isn't (that I have seen) dispute that
there are times when you do want instead contextualized resolution (and
what that means in terms of "authoritative" has to be explored).

But, that's a work item outside the scope of this WG (NB:  I'm not
saying it's irrelevant to URNs).  So, the WG chair reiterates
her request to take the discussion to the forum that is evolving
to tackle it, and encourages all interested parties to follow
the pointers provided by Michael.

I'm copying the c15n mailing list on this to help "move" it.

Thanks,
Leslie.

--

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]

---

From: Justin Couch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:24:49 +0000

> bemusing me about the URN/URI community, looked at from the point of view

[snip]

> 'authoritative' (the URN community's word) answer to everyone, every time,

[snip]

> equally authoritative.

URN's deal nicely with this too. You can use any one of the resolvers to
either resolve a URN (or URI for that matter) to either a single answer,
or all possible answers. What you choose depends on your network
bandwidth and responsiveness of the servers. In fact, if you want, you
can put multiple different resolver schemes together (something that has
been a special focus of my use of URNs).

That is, when I ask for the URN to resolve, I can ask for it to return
all answers and then decide which of those I want to read. A simple GUI
might present a list on your PDA (that has just scanned the item) and
you select the appropriate information. Then you can make use of the
URCs to deliver whatever other information about the appropriateness of
the person supplying the answer or anything else (URCs are still *very*
nebulous concepts at the moment).

--
Justin Couch                                    Author, Java Hacker
http://www.vlc.com.au/~justin/               Java 3D FAQ Maintainer
http://www.j3d.org/              J3D.org The Java 3D Community Site
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Humanism is dead. Animals think, feel; so do machines now.
Neither man nor woman is the measure of all things. Every organism
processes data according to its domain, its environment; you, with
all your brains, would be useless in a mouse's universe..."
                                              - Greg Bear, Slant
-------------------------------------------------------------------