Subject: The URN WG and Bibliographic Protocol

From: Rob Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:10:51 -0700

Leslie Daigle has raised two important issues with respect to
BibP (bibliographic protocol) and its approach to article-level
document URIs.

First she commented that the proposal does not fall under the
specific mandate of the URN WG.   I agree and suggest that some
general discussion is appropriate but detailed discussions of
small points be left to another forum.

Second, she raised some questions about the robustness of the
resolution model.   However, we think the robustness, simplicity,
fitness for purpose, and the deployment advantage of the resolution
model ought to be compelling.

The resolution model is based on the relative domain name feature
that is a widely-deployed and rock-solid feature of DNS.  Use of
this feature in protocol development is recommended in RFC 2219
(Best Current Practice 17).

Briefly stated, BibP requests are first directed to a host named
"bibhost" if that host exists (a global service otherwise).
Thus, requests from users in the yale.edu domain would be directed
to bibhost.yale.edu, requests from sfu.ca would be directed to
bibhost.sfu.ca, and requests from compaq.com would be directed
to bibhost.compaq.com.   Simple.  (Detail: the authentication
mechanism deals with an accidental preexisting bibhost.)

Although simplicity is good, what is particularly important for us
is to match the resolution model to its purpose: providing bibliographic
reference services in response to article-identifier "clicks".
Here is where the model shines: the bibhost mechanism allows
libraries at each institution the first crack at providing
bibliographic services tailored to incorporate local context
(local holdings, site licensed access, document delivery options
and so on).   Furthermore, the resolution model supports natural
scalability of the network:  as the network grows, each additional
bibhost pulls load off the global services.

Fourthly, the deployment advantage of our model over possible
URN-based approaches ought to count for something as well.  That is,
the DNS-side of our resolution model is fully deployed now.
Furthermore, with a very short bit of Javascript, we have a
client-side deployment in the great majority of existing web
browsers.  Of course, we are also working on BibP-aware versions
of many web clients to eliminate the dependency on JavaScript.
Libraries may immediately begin developing and deploying bibhosts
to serve their local patrons.

Returning now briefly to the role of this discussion on the URN WG
list.  We hope that BibP is of interest to some list members and also
hope to attract expressions of interest and constructive feedback.
Of course, direct e-mail to me rather than responses to the list
would be welcome.

In addition, we hope at some point to request a formal statement
from the URN WG to the IESG with respect to BibP.  I hope that
the statement will recognize that BibP is addressing an important
problem with an approach that is worth exploring, notwithstanding
some overlap with the URN work.

Robert D. Cameron, Ph. D.
Professor of Computing Science
Associate Dean of Applied Sciences
8888 University Drive
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada  V5A 1S6
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~cameron/

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:08:10 -0400

Rob,

Two points of clarification:

> some overlap with the URN work.

IETF WG's don't make formal statements, per se.  Working groups
do publish documents that address specific work items in their
charters -- which they send to the IESG when there has been consensus
in the working group as regards content and technical strengths.

As we've agreed, your document is not a URN WG item, and thus is not
being examined with a view to changing it to reflect WG consensus.
So, there will not be a formal statement to the IESG from the URN WG
as regards BibP.

Secondly, my _personal_ view is that there is no real problem with
the fact that your proposal has some overlap with what the URN WG
is working on; it has long been recognized that many different systems
for identification and retrieval will need to exist.  My personal
comments have been offered in the light of where I believe (still)
that your proposal is technically flawed in attempting to achieve
its own goals.

Leslie.

--

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

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