# Re: URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN

Dirk Herr-Hoyman (hoymand@joe.uwex.edu)
Mon, 18 Oct 1993 07:53:42 -36803936 (CDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Kevin Altis: "URNs and authenticity"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "using digital signature of `original content' as name"
- In reply to: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN"
- Next in thread: David Robison: "Re: URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN"
- Reply: David Robison: "Re: URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN"

    From: Dirk Herr-Hoyman <hoymand@joe.uwex.edu>

    Message-Id: <9310181253.AA07991@joe.uwex.edu>

    Subject: Re: URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN

    To: raisch@internet.com (Rob Raisch, The Internet Company)

    Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 07:53:42 -36803936 (CDT)

    In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.03.9310161744.A11995-c100000@hmmm.internet.com> from "Rob Raisch, The Internet Company" at Oct 16, 93 05:19:45 pm

>
> 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).

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?

>
> 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                        |

- Next message: Kevin Altis: "URNs and authenticity"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "using digital signature of `original content' as name"
- In reply to: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN"
- Next in thread: David Robison: "Re: URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN"
- Reply: David Robison: "Re: URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN"