Subject: Re: Namespaces for national libraries

From: José Luis Borbinha <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 22:00:08 +0100

Hi Juha, it is always good "to hear" from you! I appreciated very much your
comments, but I think that we are not really talking about the same issue.
I'll do my best to try to clarify it:

From: "Juha Hakala" <[email-masked]>
>(...)
> Last week Jose Borbinha from the National Library of Portugal sent a URN
> namespace registration for namespace "pt-bn", to be used by the library
> for various purposes. I have a couple of comments to the document.

Please be aware that I didn't send a formal request for a namespace
registration. It was a draft of that, at this stage only willing to raise a
discussion about its ideas (which is what we are doing now...). This doesn't
means that I am insecure about it, but that I really would appreciate
positive contributions (which, depending of them, might drive the process
even for other (better) results, assuming that I can reach my purposes in
the end...)

For now, lets retain from you the keyword "for various purposes". Try not to
forget it, please!

> First, the national libraries have an international initiative for
> registering a namespace "NBN", which stands for national bibliography
> number. Within this namespace, there will be sub-namespaces based on ISO
> country code. So, for instance Portugal can use urn:nbn:pt: for
> basically all purposes Jose lists in his draft. Moreover, since
> assigning national sub-namespaces within the international NBN namespace
> is internal affair, you do not need to bother with the registration of
> your own namespace in the IETF. On the other hand, if all national
> libraries were to follow Portugal's example, IETF would need to tackle
> with >150 registration requests.

First, I don't see my proposal as an alternative to yours (I assume that
Juha is talking about the IETF draft "draft-hakala-nbn-00.txt").
Some reasons are:

-- You claim that "national libraries have an international initiative for
registering a namespace".
I'm sorry, but we simply don't have NBNs in Portugal... The closest concept
we have is our legal deposit number, but it applies only to some genres,
representing near 10% of our holdings (and we have a dash "/" on it,
btw...). For these cases I'm with you! I can use your URNs very well.
You can claim here that even if we don't have a unique numbering system, why
don't we use all those we have inside our NBN sub-space, in the way we want
it? Well, I don't see why should I use a NBN namespace for resources that
belong to other genres, where in some case the "Bibliographic" designation
simply will not apply... I'll try to explain this better here (you can also
re-read the emails that I exchanged in this list with Michael Mealling, in
the last 23 and 24 August...).

For now, I'd like to say that I noticed that I need to rewrite the Abstract
and Introduction in my text to reflect this purpose, since like they are
they don't reflect our target (otherwise, most of your comments would make
all the sense, in fact). I guess that I was not too carefully about it

-- Also, I don't see any problem in registering 150 namespaces, if they are
useful (how many DNSs we have?...). However, if I'll go on with this and it
becomes an RFC, it'll be an "Informational" document. We'll be only
following the requirements for URN registration... Probably if too many
libraries get interested in the concept, we can propose a new RFC to update
the RFC 2611 for this scope...

> You may remember that I sent an Internet draft registering the NBN
> namespace to the [email-masked] in Spring. The comments were few,
> and generally favorable. So, from IETF point of view the draft is OK.
> However, the international working group preparing the text (or, to be
>...

I don't have objections to it neither (BTW, please be aware that the only
author of the actual draft is you, and now you refer to a working group...)

> One major issue remains: what to do if the identifier used as URN also
> has its own namespace? That is, should we stick to urn:isbn: instead of
> urn:nbn:pt: or urn:bn-pt:. The answer, as I see it, depends on the
> identifier system and location of the resolution services.

Here, I don't see any problem too...
I don't understand the URN purpose as a 1:1 solution (I mean, each resource
should have only one URN). It simply doesn't make any sense in our actual
complex world...
On the other side, I accept that we are talking about an N:1 model, so I
don't see why can't we have URN namespaces overlapping (btw, that exists
already with the books and serials that receive a legal deposit number in
Portugal and have also ISBN or ISSN -as I guess it happens almost
everywhere...).

> I sent 30 minutes ago to the IETF an Internet draft, which registers a
> namespace for ISBN, International Standard Book Number. ISBN, as
> intelligent code, provides good hints as to where to find a resolution
> service. Since there is no global ISBN database, ISBNs need to be
> resolved in national bibliography databases. Within DNS system there
> needs to be a record for each ISBN group identifier (which means that
> about 200 DNS records need to be created). For instance, if ISBN begins
> with "951", the DNS record will point to the Finnish national
> bibliography database. If ISBN starts with 972, the resolution service
> will be found from Lisbon. In some cases a cascade of resolution
> services is needed; for ISBNs starting with 3 it is necessary to check
> Germany, Austria and Switzerland, in this order.

Good! That works if what you define as "resource" for this URN is "the
metadata associated to a ISBN registration".

But what happens if I want to use a URN based in a ISBN (as I describe in my
proposal) for a resource that I have in my library and is related with a
book with a ISBN starting by 951 (please note that I didn't say
"resource=book", but "resource=something related with a book", which I'll
try to clarify better in the end of this email)?
In this case the resolution by your proposal would be done by your service
in Finland, which is not my purpose (unless I agree to send you my
information before, but I'm affraid that shuch would not scale for all the
world... This doesn't mean that I don't like your namespace, it means only
that I need to use "your" ISBN also for MY namespace, for my purposes...

> Therefore I do not see any need for having URNs like
> urn:bn-pt:isbn:<ISBN>. In order to enable usage of Portuguese national
> bibliography database for resolving ISBN-based URNs, you will only need
> urn:isbn:. But things are not always as simple as this.
>
> ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) is a dumb code. Luckily
> there is also a global ISSN database, which currently contains about
> million bibliographic records. The ISSN International Centre will
> register a URN namespace for ISSN. For technical reasons the only
> resolution service that can be used is the one built on top of the ISSN
> database (as an aside, the ISSN centre has already built a URN
> resolution server and WWW browser plug-in; they work fine).

No, things are not always simple... But is you who is willing to propose
these global URN namespaces, not me... I accept that you have the right of
to do it, but I confess that I don't see many practical reasons for its
success... What will give me a resolution of a URN like urn:issn:1234-5678.
The title and publisher of the serials? Good! But how I know where to get it
in Portugal?

> Now, if the National Library of Portugal wants to replace the ISSN
> database with their own national bibliography as resolution service, the
> only way to do this, as far as I can see, is to define a namespace such
> as urn:bn-pt:issn: or urn:nbn:pt:issn:.

I don't want to replace anything!!!
I just want to let people know where in Portugal they can find a book which
ISBN is 953-6003-37-6. It was not published in Portugal, but in Zagreb (it
the only foreign book I have here in my desk now...). Tis book exists in the
collection of my library, and if it exists also is any other library in
Portugal member of PORBASE (our national catalogue), I have that information
in a database.
So, it makes all the sense to me to define a URN in the form
"urn:pt-bn:isbn:953-6003-37-6", and announce that it can be solved by a
service I have as http://purl.pt/urn:pt-bn:isbn:953-6003-37-6 (according the
examples in my proposal it can be solved also as
http://purl.ptisbn:953-6003-37-6, but please note that this is a simple PURL
spin-off of the process, which has nothing to do with a formal URN
namespace).

So, what really I intend to give back in this resolution? Simply an HTML
page (in fact, an XML page in the future, with a reference to an XSL file if
you want to see it in a browser, or anything else that a possible future URN
global resolution framework will require, if the IEFT and/or the W3C promote
it...)!!!
For now, in this page I intend to present the contents of the record in
PORBASE, which includes possible contents of the 856 UNIMARC field and also
the reference and call numbers of the same work in all the libraries in
Portugal that I know have it... But not only that!!!!

It is time to explain you what is a resource to me: it is a metadata record,
simply that, in an XML schema that I intend to publish in the future (for
now, as we intend to give back HTML, I'm not too worried with that...)!!!!

These metadata records will give us information about books, journals,
reports, etc., printed and/or digital (or digitized), but they can tell us
about other "strange" things such as:
- news (one singe news text deposited in our library by the national news
agency, why not... it is because of this that in my proposal there is a
chance for URNs with a time part, which can refer to very tiny instants)
- authorities (yes, why not an URN for each author, which once resolved
gives us a metadata record with all I know about him/her/it in my
databases -books, notes, short bio, etc...?, which probably will come from
an LDAP system...) [btw, we'll start very soon a new European project in
authorities to feed this genre of resources, involving libraries and
archives... it'll be named LEAF -more news will come in a few months]
- and more...

> For some reason not clear to me, Jose does not rely on SICI standard
> (Serial Item and Contribution Identifier, see RFC2288) for
> identification of journal issues and articles or sections within

It is simple: we don't have analytic records in PORBASE... But why not in
the future?

> To sum up: Jose's proposal should be aligned with international
> developments. It is also necessary to analyse more carefully how
> individual identifier systems actually can be resolved within the URN
> framework. Some times domestic arrangements should be avoided; some
> other times they may be desirable.

I'm sorry, but as far as I know it there is no other "URN framework" than
the RFCs 2141 and 2611, and the informational RFC for the registration of
namespaces... I don't see were I am out of the scope...

There is also another important issue related with my proposal, which is the
prefix "pt-" in my namespace. I am surprised that it didn't raised yet any
discussion... RFC 2611 is very clear about it, when it says that:

===== FROM RFC 2611 =======
  Scope:
      This section should outline the scope of the use of the
      identifiers in this namespace.  Apart from considerations of
      private vs. public namespaces, this section is critical in
      evaluating the applicability of a requested NID.  For example, a
      namespace claiming to deal in "social security numbers" should
      have a global scope and address all social security number
      structures (unlikely).  On the other hand, at a national level, it
      is reasonable to propose a URN namespace for "this nation's social
      security numbers".
(...)
4.0 URN Namespace Registration, Update, and NID Assignment Process
(...)
           NOTE: ALL two-letter combinations, and two-letter
           combinations followed by "-" and any sequence of valid NID
           characters,  are reserved for potential use as countrycode-
           based  NIDs for eventual national registrations of URN
           namespaces.
===== =========== =======

These statements, with my assumption that we are dealing with a N:1 problem
and not with a 1:1, gave me the trigger to raise the issues that I
presented, as also the right to think that I am not interfering with any
possible proposal for namespaces like URN:NBN, URN:ISSN, URN:ISBN, URN:SICI
(btw, shouldn't this be a subspace of URN:ISSN ????).

I want to say that with this initiative I also intend to gain experience to
propose in a further step my library as a registration authority for the
space "URN:PT-". But I don't think it is already the moment for that. We
have a lot to learn before, first with our subnamespaces... It'd be
interesting if in some time from now we could come back with an
international working group and propose to IETF an RFC twin of 2611 for the
registration of national URN subspaces... I'm willing of that...

So, it is a fact that this is a local initiative, but I think that its
pioneering deserves in a first step an IEFT draft, and if it succeeds, and
informational RFC.

I tried to explain why I think that I'm different from Juha's perspectives,
and on the same time thanks to this opportunity I tried to explain a bit
more my real purpose. It is clear to me that I need to rewrite the actual
draft a lot, to explain all of this, but I really would like to hear a bit
more from you all before... I'm listening!!!!!

And it is all for now... Sorry for this VERY long email!
Many thanks for your attention (for those of you that survived until
here...)!
best regards,
jlb

PS: I'd like to ask to the members of this list that in case you want to
reply with comments to specific aspects of the discussion, please do it
creating a new thread in the Subject field of your message. Otherwise it can
be a mess...

_______________________________________
José Luis Borbinha <[email-masked]>
Biblioteca Nacional (National Library of Portugal)
Direcção de Serviços de Inovação e Desenvolvimento
(Direction of Services for Innovation and Development)
Campo Grande, 83 - 1749-081 Lisboa - PORTUGAL
Tel./Fax: (+351) 217 982 083 / 217 982 123

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:24:36 -0400

Howdy,

I don't have a lot to contribute to this discussion -- I'm very
happy to see it happening, though.  The one thing that I think is
important in consideration of all new namespace proposals is:
is there another that exists that already does the job.

I think you've carried your point that, although there will be
structural similarities between this proposal and the NBN identifiers,
what they are meant to identify is in fact different; different services
will ensue.  This doesn't take away from the NBN effort.  If
it transgresses polite behaviour in national library circles is
not for me to say :-)

And,

> prefix "pt-" in my namespace. I am surprised that it didn't raised yet any

you are of course right -- per RFC2611, this is not a permissible
namespace ID (unless and until we have the country-level scoping
discussion, and I don't think it's yet the time).

Leslie.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary...
    ... or was that the other way around?"
   -- ThinkingCat

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

---

From: José Luis Borbinha <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:32:42 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
(...)
>discussion, and I don't think it's yet the time).

If there is a serious obstacle to address the problem of the national
prefixes by this way, I can split my proposal in two threads:

- one for my short term objective of having a namespace for the services I
described (urn:porbase makes all the sense, since we are in a process of
expansion of our services to the "Portuguese speaking world" (and not
only...) and we are going to have also the DNS "porbase.org")
- another thread for the national urn namespaces

However, I fear that for practical reasons in this way we'll finish
concentrating in the first issue, and forget about the second, which I
really would like to address (with "we" I mean my group here...). It is what
my experience tells me...

Please advise me here...
Thanks!
jose borbinha

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:46:30 -0400

José,

> prefixes by this way, I can split my proposal in two threads:

The serious obstacle runs something like this:

        In reserving the "<cc>-" prefix, we're basically saying
        that until there is a uniform policy IANA can apply for
        assigning NIDs with that prefix for any country, none
        can be assigned.

        That policy would likely be one of:

        . Nothing -- anyone who asks for it can have it.

        . Coordinated with a duly recognized authority within
          a country

The problem is -- what's a "duly recognized authority"?  We barely
can handle that for country code TLDs in DNS; we're unlikely to
figure it out any time soon for URNs.  And yet, I don't think we're
ready to throw in the towel and go with the first option.

It's the same kind of thing we've all heard since childhood -- "if
we can't solve it for everybody, we can't give it to anybody".

> my experience tells me...

It sounds like you've already got a compelling reason not to use
the "pt-" based URN NID for the first case; it sounds like what you
really want for the second is something specific to the national
library of Portugal (and the collections/deposits it manages)?
Like BNPORTUGAL?

Leslie.

--

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]