# Re: urn:publisher.com:xxxxxx

Rob Raisch, The Internet Company (raisch@internet.com)
Sun, 17 Oct 1993 19:56:10 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: R. P. Channing: "Re: URNs and authenticity"
- Previous message: Kevin Altis: "URNs and authenticity"
- In reply to: William A. Weems: "urn:publisher.com:xxxxxx"

    Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 19:56:10 -0700 (PDT)

    From: "Rob Raisch, The Internet Company" <raisch@internet.com>

    Subject: Re: urn:publisher.com:xxxxxx

    To: "William A. Weems" <wweems@oac3.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>

    In-Reply-To: <9310180059.AA04665@mocha.bunyip.com>

    Message-Id: <Pine.3.03.9310171930.A23840-c100000@hmmm.internet.com>

On Sun, 17 Oct 1993, William A. Weems wrote:
> Problem: A journal with an ISSN number is published first in only
> ASCII. Later the publisher/archivist for a number of good
> reasons wishes to enhance the functionality/readability of the
> articles. So the articles in old editions are run through an
> automated process to create say HTML versions. The
> intellectual content of the articles HAS NOT changed. Thus,
> how do we ensure the conceptual/citation linkages are
> maintained by the UR* System as technology progresses?

Ummmm... If the data is provided in some other form than the publisher has
provided, it is no longer the original document and the URN is no longer
valid. This is an entirely new product, and if you do not have the
permission of the publisher to convert the original into a new form, you
are in violation of copyright. If the publisher provides the data in a new
form, this must be a new URN, no?

URNs do not guarentee "intellectual content." URNs refer to whatever the
publisher says they do. URNs refer to products.

I think that there is a real problem here (as I have mentioned before) if
we start thinking in terms of the intellectual content of a particular
document. The only authority which can guarentee that document/1 and
document/2 "contain" the same intellectual content is the publisher of
the document. And I do not believe that we can count on the publisher to
make the correct decision in all cases (or in most.)

Publishers are not concerned with intellectual content. They are
concerned with products. And they are the only ones who *can* make this
decision.

Food for thought: Assume a document in ASCII and the same document in
Postscript. Do they contain the same "intellectual content?" What metric
do we, (wearing our publisher hats), use to decide?

Consider the following example. Is there a difference in "intellectual
content" in these two sentences?

Sentence one: The hammer hit the nail with enough force to shatter the wood.

Sentence two: The hammer hit the nail with enough force to
<ITALIC>shatter</ITALIC> the wood.

How about a product in GIF and the same product in JPEG at 75%? At 50%?
At 25%?

</rr>

- Next message: R. P. Channing: "Re: URNs and authenticity"
- Previous message: Kevin Altis: "URNs and authenticity"
- In reply to: William A. Weems: "urn:publisher.com:xxxxxx"