# RE: URIs Meta-Information--The Value of ISBNs

Rebecca Guenther (rgue@seq1.loc.gov)
Tue, 19 Oct 93 10:03:00 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alan Emtage: "Re: FAQ? (was Johns list of points)"
- Previous message: Ramin Firoozye: "Black Boxes"

    Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 10:03:00 -0400

    From: rgue@seq1.loc.gov (Rebecca Guenther)

    Message-Id: <9310191403.AA05111@seq1.loc.gov>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: RE: URIs Meta-Information--The Value of ISBNs

>> So, The ISBN Authority does really three things, it:
>>
>> 1. assigns a unique identifier to the publisher
>>
>> 2. guarentees that all ISBNs are in a defined format
>>
>> 3. acts as a central repository for certain meta-information
>> about the publisher and its products.
>Since we are tempted to draw a parallel between ISBNs and URNs,
>let me add this caution. An *separate* ISBN is assigned to each
>format of a work. I did not realize this until I spoke to a
>cataloger from the National Ag Lib, who was cataloging (that means
>creating a record for a bibliographic db, often called a MARC
>record, for those not familiar with libraries) the electronic
>version of the Journal of Extension (EJOE).

The library community has been wrestling with the problem of
"multiple versions" for many years. Yes, we are generally creating
separate bibliographic records for different manifestations of a
work in different physical formats. However, some institutions are
amalgamating these records for display in their online public
access catalogs. A solution has been debated that proposes creating
only one full bibliographic record for the item and attaching to it
separate "version" records, which give minimal information,
including only that which is different from the original, and
location/holdings information. For practical reasons (difficulty
for large bibliographic utilities and LC to implement this
dependant record scenario) this practice has not been widely
adopted, although some institutions do use it.
See below for more information on the assignment of ISBNs.

>Having a separate ISBN for each format does not necessary match up
>to what some have proposed using URNs for (and I believe we have
>left this as a per publisher decision). I would also add that
>there is a separate MARC record created for each ISBN. This will
>have implications for URCs, no?

There is not necessarily a separate MARC record for each ISBN. A
record can contain more than one ISBNs;
these have a textual qualification following the number in the
appropriate field in the record. The decision as to whether to
create a separate record is up to the cataloger and is determined
by whether there the work constitutes a new edition rather than a
copy of an earlier manifestation. An edition is defined as "all
copies produced from essentially the same type image ... and issued
by the same entity (books, pamphlets, etc.)". For computer files,
it is: "All copies embodying essentially the same content and
issued by the same entity"; for other materials: "All copies
produced from essentially the same master copy and issued by the
same entity." (Definitions from _Anglo-American Cataloging Rules_,
2nd edition.) An addition, deletion or change in ISBN is not
reason alone to create a separate record. (This from _Library of
Congress Rule Interpretations_). (There is plenty more written on
what constitutes a new edition.)

>> For the above reasons, I believe that ISBNs are a VERY BAD model
>>for what we wish to accomplish with URNs. The only value which
>>the ISBN brings to the discussion is that it is a unique
>>identifier for a publisher's product, but the management
>>infrastructure which ISBNs use doesn't fit.
>> I strongly believe that the publisher is the only authoritative
>>source for the meta-information we need, and that even in the
>>ISBN model, it is the publisher who is responsible for the
>>uniqueness of the ISBN, not the ISBN Authority.
>While I want to agree with Rob here, since I can't see any other
>way of implementing this, I also am wary of creating a new model
>for publishing. Currently ISBN assignment is controled centrally,
>and with a well defined format no less. We are talking about
>decentralized assignment with a "free form" format. I'm not
>saying I disagree with this, but if we are thinking about where
>the "rocky shoals" lie, I would suggest that this could be one.

>I would feel more comfortable if we heard from librarians and
>those that assign ISBN (Library of Congress?) on this point. I
>get the feeling that we may come up with a technical solution that
>won't fly on some other level.

>Dirk Herr-Hoyman |
>Internet Publishing Specialist |
>Electronic Journal of Extension | Follow your heart!
> Project Coordinator |
>University of Wisconsin-Extension | (to Florida...)
>hoymand@joe.uwex.edu |

The following information is from the _Library of Congress Rule
Interpretations_ on ISBNs:
The purpose of the ISBN is to identify one title or edition of a
title from one specific publisher by number for processing and
inventory control. The ISBN is carried in the MARC record and has
become an addition access point in many computer-based systems.

It consists of ten digits divided into 4 parts:
a) Group identifier: identifies national, geographic, or other
similar grouping of publishers. It varies in length according to
likely output of items in a group.
b) Publisher identifier: identifies a particular publisher within
a group. The length varies. Publisher identifiers are allocated by
group or national ISBN agencies.
c) Title identifier: Identifies a particular title or edition of a
title published by a particular publisher. Title identifiers are
usually assigned by the publisher.
d) Check digit: last digit of the number; consists of a single
digit, 0-9, or the capital letter X, which represents 10. Derived
from a calculation on the other nine digits and is used in computer
systems to validate numbers as a means of checking against errors
in transcription.

There are other standard numbers intended to be unique
identification numbers and assigned by a central authority, such as
International Standard Serial Number, Standard Recording Number,
Standard Technical Report Number, etc. The assignment by a central
authority assures that the numbers are unique and in a standard
format.

I hope this is useful information and not too long-winded. We are
grappling with these issues as we begin to create bibliographic
records for electronic items, especially those on the Internet.
We are holding a spot for the URN (or whatever you might call it at
that point) to uniquely identify the item, and perhaps provide the
link to the location information. (For those who are not aware, we
have recently defined a field in the MARC record for electronic
location and access, but are looking at the URI group to solve some
of the difficulties we have encountered. It is similar to the URL
under discussion and may in the future be replaced by it after the URL
is fully developed and accepted.)

Rebecca Guenther
Senior MARC Standards Specialist
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20540-4020
rgue@seq1.loc.gov
(202) 707-5092

- Next message: Alan Emtage: "Re: FAQ? (was Johns list of points)"
- Previous message: Ramin Firoozye: "Black Boxes"