Subject: Re: [urn] The 3406bis template

From: Juha Hakala <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:40:21 +0200

Hello,

On 14.11.2013 1:13, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> <snip> ... over the last few days I have performed some major surgery 
> on 3406bis to further simplify registration. In my working copy, the 
> template is now one page, not four. I will submit my proposal soon so 
> that folks here can review it. It's possible that I've gone too far in 
> the direction of simplification, in which case we can always meeting 
> somewhere in the middle. Peter 

I have taken a look at this I-D. A few minor comments:

In chapter 4.1 there are a few criteria for organizations that will 
assign URNs within a formal namespace.

The first requirement - organizational stability and the ability to 
maintain the URN namespace for a long time - only needs to apply to the 
organization which registers the namespace. Especially when there is a 
single point where the URNs within the namespace are resolved (ISSN 
namespace is an example of this) the organizations which just assign 
URNs do not themselves need to be stable.

The last two requirements - competency in name assignment & commitment 
to not reassign existing names - apply to both the registrant of the 
namespace and organizations which assign URNs within that namespace. 
Usually they are not the one and the same organization.

These two requirements have been inherited from RFC 3406, and if we want 
to keep them, fine. But it is possible to merge the last two 
requirements together by saying that organizations which assign URNs 
within a formal namespace must familiar with (and stick to) the rules 
and regulations concerning the usage of the identifier system to which 
that namespace has been registered.

In chapter 5.1 it might be useful to add an example to the first question:

- The kinds of resources (e.g., books) identified by URNs assigned 
within the namespace

I would not require an explanation why it is preferable to use URNs 
rather than some other technology. As an aside, the current example is 
not helpful since URNs are also URIs.

The second point could be for instance

- Why existing URN namespaces are not a good fit, especially if there is 
a namespace which covers same kinds of resources.

For instance, NBN, like ISBN, covers books. But NBN should only be used 
to the book when it does not have an ISBN, so there is no overlap 
between these two namespaces.

Section 7 should make it clear if some action is required on behalf of 
the registrants of the existing URN namespaces. My take on this is that 
all old namespace registrations will still be valid after the new 
namespace definition mechanism has been approved, but any revision to 
these old namespace registrations must be done according to the new 
procedure.

Section 8 claims that registrants ("sometimes do not initially 
understand some of the subtleties of URN namespaces"). It might be 
better to say that they sometimes do not initially understand some of 
the subtleties (or requirements) of the URN namespace registration 
process.  Namespaces themselves, as long as their features depend on the 
identifier systems behind them, must be familiar to any competent 
registrant.

Otherwise the draft looks OK to me.

Best regards,

Juha

-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor

  The National Library of Finland
  Library Network Services
  P.O.Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
  FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Tel. +358 9 191 44293
  Mobile +358 50 3827678