# Re: URNs and authenticity

R. P. Channing (rodgers@nlm.nih.gov)
Mon, 18 Oct 93 09:42:49 EDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: James M Galvin: "Re: using digital signature of `original content' as name"
- Previous message: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: urn:publisher.com:xxxxxx"
- Maybe in reply to: Kevin Altis: "URNs and authenticity"
- Next in thread: Kevin Altis: "Re: URNs and authenticity"

    Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 09:42:49 EDT

    From: rodgers@nlm.nih.gov (R. P. Channing ("Rick") Rodgers)

    Message-Id: <9310181342.AA27704@billings.nlm.nih.gov>

    To: uri@bunyip.com, kevin@scic.intel.com

    Subject: Re: URNs and authenticity

> From uri-request@mocha.bunyip.com Mon Oct 18 01:16:05 1993
> X-Sender: kevin@rs042.scic.intel.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii">
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 20:50:42 -0800
> To: uri@bunyip.com
> From: kevin@scic.intel.com (Kevin Altis)
> Subject: URNs and authenticity
> Content-Length: 2253
>
> At 8:01 PM 10/17/93 -0500, William A. Weems wrote:
> >If one is going to be able to "electronically" cite papers, it seems that
> >URNs must be PERMANENT.
>
> Not only must the URN be permanent, but you have to be able to determine
> the authenticity of the URN as well>
[...]
> What happens when you cite a paper in the academic world and the
> information either ends up being invalid or even fraudulent or you make an
> incorrect interpretation of the information? [...] One of the biggest problems
> with electronic documentation for doctors is that they have to be able to
> show what they knew and when

Whoa! I hope we are not going to make the computerized patient record (CPR) a
model for what we are trying to do with URxs. If so, we are doomed from the
start. The history of the CPR is a trail of tears. We need to be a bit more
humble about our goals here.

Putting aside the parallel with CPR, your
points about data integrity are well taken. However, this is a problem of
social/organizational nature, not a technical problem. To draw an analogy with
the world of publishing, the issuing of a block of ISBNs to a publisher in
no way guarantees the validity of content of the publications to which the
numbers will be attached (remember, "News of the World" has its number, too).

If an academic wishes to point to the URN of a paper, it is likely that that
paper (or some form of validation key) will have had to be deposited with a
disinterested third party such as a formally constituted electronic journal,
to ensure that he can not tamper with it. The reputation of the journal will
rest partly on its preceived ability to maintain the integrity of the
information it keeps. This is analogous to today's system of printed
publication, but with the crucial difference that there is a continuing
risk of the information being corrupted (whereas it would be tough for
someone to doctor every copy of a printed journal once it has been
disseminated). There is no way for a simple technical naming scheme to
address all of the complex issues of authority, validity, reputation, etc.
that a fully functioning electronic publishing system will require.

On another issue--at the risk of becoming a burr under the collective saddle
at the IETF, I will try my best to insist that the issues we discuss are
outlined fully and clearly before we plunge into discussion. Following the
current email pre-discussions make it quite clear that we all see those
portions of the problems at hand which concern us immediately, and that
sometimes we tend to plunge into debate full-armored (good-humored, thankfully)
with only partial information.

Cheerio, Rick Rodgers, M.D. (the only time I've thought my degree relevant
to uri discussions!)

- Next message: James M Galvin: "Re: using digital signature of `original content' as name"
- Previous message: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: urn:publisher.com:xxxxxx"
- Maybe in reply to: Kevin Altis: "URNs and authenticity"
- Next in thread: Kevin Altis: "Re: URNs and authenticity"