Subject: [urn] IETF 83 (Paris) - Minutes of URNbis session - please check

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:32:10 +0200 (MESZ)

<speaking as a co-chair>

It has been somehow missed to bring to your attention:

The (draft) Minutes of the URNbis session at the IETF 83 meeting
in Paris are available at
  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-urnbis.txt

Thanks to Bengt Neiss for taking these minutes!

For convenience, I have copied the entire text below.

Please check and provide feedback to help fill out a few details.

Kind regards
  Alfred.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

URNBIS Working Group
Monday, March 26, 2012 1510-1610
Chairs: Andrew (Andy) Newton
Applications Area Advisor: Peter Saint-Andre
Scribe: Bengt Neiss

1. Agenda Bashing

The published agenda was presented. The item "URNS, Registries & W3C"
were removed from the agenda due to the absence of Larry Masinter.
There were no objections to the modified agenda and the agenda
changes were accepted.

The new area director, Barry Leiba, was introduced to the group.

2. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02

Andy Newton led the discussion on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02
based on statements made in the current version of the text where
several issues were noted for closing.  Andy encouraged the audience to
read the issues and comment before April 16, 2012, for the issues to
stay unclosed.

Juha Hakala commented on the need for clarification of functional
equivalence and that the description of it is unsatisfactory.

The group observed that there is still no consensus on fragment
identifiers.  Leslie Daigle stated that she is not sure that the
proposed use of fragment identifiers is consistent with URI syntax.
Juha Hakala, on the other hand, meant that it was the aim for the
working group to solve this issue.  A discussion about the use of
fragment identifiers and fragment identifiers connection to media types
followed between Juha Hakala and Leslie Daigle, only interrupted by a
couple of questions asked by Peter Saint-Andre and Andy Newton for
clarification on the issue.

Juha Hakala also stated that most name spaces will not use fragment
identifiers but that there are name spaces where fragments are
manageable.  He meant that ISBN have been an example to show how
identifiers are used when media types change and that this shows how
fragment identifiers can be managed over time.  Leslie Daigle also
commented on the long text sections in the draft and thought they should
be worked on and be much shorter.

A suggestion was made by Leslie Daigle to separate the issue on fragment
identifiers from the draft and into a document of its own experimental
document.

3. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-02

Andy Newton stated that some have noted as having found consensus.
Everyone is therefore encouraged to review the text and send any
comments to the mailing list.

Juha Hakala commented on the 2-week mailing list review period for
formal namespace registrations.  Former objections were due to a
misunderstanding and that the proposed 2 week period now is ok.  Peter
Saint-Andre thought it would be good to capture best practices and he
will post more on this issue when posting reviews of the documents.
Juha Hakala stated that he would like to leave things out from this
version concerning the need to provide metadata.  Leslie Daigle thought
that it might not be enough to just have best practices as examples.

4.  draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-02

A presentation was held by Juha Hakala.

- current draft fairly mature
- ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 covered
- fragment part needs to be revised
- need to include discussion of functional equivalence
- indicate which resolution services are necessary in the URN namespace
- needs some language polishing

See presentation for more info.

A slide on 3188bis was presented as well(?).

- text is mature as regards to syntax, but scope and functional
equivalence could/should be discussed in more details

See presentation for more info.

5. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3044bis-issn-urn-00

A presentation was held by Pierre Godefroy.
- Three issues exists
- Issue 1: Resolution if ISSN's needs to be centralized
- Issue 2: Only one ISSN-L will be issued no matter how many media
  version exists (see presentation for more info)
- Issue 3: Updating and management of URLs

See presentation for more info

The presentation was commented by Peter Saint-Andre.  He thought it is
unclear at what the identifier points to.  A short discussion followed
and Juha Hakala stated that the national bodies should provide
resolution to a copy of the journal.

6. Closing session

The working group meeting closed with a discussion on the involvement in
the work.  Peter Saint-Andre expressed some concern about the
involvement in the discussions and the need to have more people active
on the mailing list.  Andy Newton suggested the possibility use internet
meetings to achieve this.

Juha Hakala talked about the composition of the working group.  He meant
that the working group is a divided community in that sense that there
are a technical community and a bibliographic community that rarely
meets and it would be good if the technical community could learn from
the bibliographic community and vice versa.  The work has implications
to a broader community that never shows up.

NN from Internet Society said that other communities like ORCID or
medical communities don't show up because URNs are not well understood.
Leslie Daigle meant that the working group might struggle to meet its
ultimate goal if there isn't broader participation from other
communities.  Peter Saint-Andre mentioned that there have been a lot of
name space registrations but he was unsure on how to reach out to them
and get them to participate in the work.

Juha Hakala mentioned that Handle system has been handed over to ITU and
wondered what implications this might have for the work at IETF.

Peter Saint-Andre relayed a comment from jabber about TC 46 (see Jabber
for more info).  Juha Hakala responded that he hoped that once the work
is done within IETF it could be introduced to TC 46.  Peter Saint-Andre
stressed the need to think this through before going forward with
something like this.

Session closed

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:53:54 -0600

> meetings to achieve this.

I think "internet meetings" should be "interim meetings".

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/