Message-Id: <9310180059.AA04665@mocha.bunyip.com>
From: William A. Weems <wweems@oac3.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>
Subject: urn:publisher.com:xxxxxx
To: uri@bunyip.com
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 20:01:02 CDT
Larry Masinter writes:
>It had been my impression that one of the design requirements for URNs
>was that names of objects have to be PERMANENT -- that you can
>make a reference in one document to another document that will
>`stick', and not change even though the second document moves, its'
>publisher goes out of business or whatever.
If one is going to be able to "electronically" cite papers, it seems that
URNs must be PERMANENT. A question that has been extensively discussed by
this working group that still must be resolved is who/where/what decides
what is a unique document.
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?
Solution:? I think it was Marc A. who a few weeks ago proposed a system
where URNs were effectively DOCUMENT PERMANENT in that the
URN server "knows" that URN:ISSN1234-5679::1994_ref_45::: is
available, for example, in ASCII, HTML, and audio formats.
Client "presenter" applications can then determine which of
the formats they prefer and/or can handle. It thus becomes
the authority/publisher's/archivist's responsibility to
"inform" the global UR* server network as to where unique
"documents" can be found and in what format.
If a "book" publisher comes out with a later edition that say
includes mpeg video and hence in the authority/publisher's
(i.e. the copyright OWNER of the document) opinion has a
different content, then a new, unique URN would be assigned to
this later edition. Thus, references/citations to the earlier
edition using its URN would remain functional whereas authors
creating new "documents" could also reference the later
addition via its unique URN if the altered informational
content is required. The "book" publisher can, however, at
some time decide that it is appropriate to provide the first
edition in one or more new formats without changing its URN.
(This should allow URNs to still be functional as yet unknown
presentation/delivery formats are developed!)
If the informational object is something like an x-ray in
which a compression technique like jpeg is unacceptable, the
appropriate naming authority/designee (e.g. the International
Society of Radiologists) would not permit a URN labeled
"document" to be distributed in an inappropriate format.
I agree with Peter D. that URNs should be able to both trigger a process
that resolves URNs to URLs and also define sameness.
Rob Raisch writes:
>Who, is the authority of the information of and about the document if it
>has no publisher? Without any authority, there can be no guarantee of
>identity.
>I believe that this presupposes that there is some authority which
>maintains the meta-information for documents in the public-domain.
>Volunteers?
Probably groups like the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).
Libraries are desperately looking for a role in the new National
Information Infrastructure (NII).
>I do not think that there was ever any assumption that the URN be a
>permanent identifier. Rather, a URN must never be reused.
>From a researcher's point of view, the above are probably the same. If
the publisher disappears and an archiving group does not support the
document. The document will be lost along with its URN.
--William A. Weems, Ph.D MSB 4.218 Director P.O. Box 20708 Office of Academic Computing Houston, Texas 77225 U. of Texas Houston-Health Sci. Cntr. Phone: 713-792-5277 Associate Professor, Physiology FAX: 713-794-5653 U. of Texas Medical School Houston wweems@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu