URNBIS Working Group Monday, March 26, 2012 1510-1610 Chairs: Andrew (Andy) Newton Applications Area Advisor: Peter Saint-Andre Scribe: Bengt Neiss 1. Agenda Bashing The published agenda was presented. The item “URNS, Registries & W3C” were removed from the agenda due to the absence of Larry Masinter. There were no objections to the modified agenda and the agenda changes were accepted. The new area director, Barry Leiba, was introduced to the group. 2. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02 Andy Newton led the discussion on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02 based on statements made in the current version of the text where several issues were noted for closing. Andy encouraged the audience to read the issues and comment before April 16, 2012, for the issues to stay unclosed. Juha Hakala commented on the need for clarification of functional equivalence and that the description of it is unsatisfactory. The group observed that there is still no consensus on fragment identifiers. Leslie Daigle stated that she is not sure that the proposed use of fragment identifiers is consistent with URI syntax. Juha Hakala, on the other hand, meant that it was the aim for the working group to solve this issue. A discussion about the use of fragment identifiers and fragment identifiers connection to media types followed between Juha Hakala and Leslie Daigle, only interrupted by a couple of questions asked by Peter Saint-Andre and Andy Newton for clarification on the issue. Juha Hakala also stated that most name spaces will not use fragment identifiers but that there are name spaces where fragments are manageable. He meant that ISBN have been an example to show how identifiers are used when media types change and that this shows how fragment identifiers can be managed over time. Leslie Daigle also commented on the long text sections in the draft and thought they should be worked on and be much shorter. A suggestion was made by Leslie Daigle to separate the issue on fragment identifiers from the draft and into a document of its own experimental document. 3. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-02 Andy Newton stated that some have noted as having found consensus. Everyone is therefore encouraged to review the text and send any comments to the mailing list. Juha Hakala commented on the 2-week mailing list review period for formal namespace registrations. Former objections were due to a misunderstanding and that the proposed 2 week period now is ok. Peter Saint-Andre thought it would be good to capture best practices and he will post more on this issue when posting reviews of the documents. Juha Hakala stated that he would like to leave things out from this version concerning the need to provide metadata. Leslie Daigle thought that it might not be enough to just have best practices as examples. 4. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-02 A presentation was held by Juha Hakala. - current draft fairly mature - ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 covered - fragment part needs to be revised - need to include discussion of functional equivalence - indicate which resolution services are necessary in the URN namespace - needs some language polishing See presentation for more info. A slide on 3188bis was presented as well(?). - text is mature as regards to syntax, but scope and functional equivalence could/should be discussed in more details See presentation for more info. 5. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3044bis-issn-urn-00 A presentation was held by Pierre Godefroy. - Three issues exists - Issue 1: Resolution if ISSN's needs to be centralized - Issue 2: Only one ISSN-L will be issued no matter how many media version exists (see presentation for more info) - Issue 3: Updating and management of URLs See presentation for more info The presentation was commented by Peter Saint-Andre. He thought it is unclear at what the identifier points to. A short discussion followed and Juha Hakala stated that the national bodies should provide resolution to a copy of the journal. 6. Closing session The working group meeting closed with a discussion on the involvement in the work. Peter Saint-Andre expressed some concern about the involvement in the discussions and the need to have more people active on the mailing list. Andy Newton suggested the possibility use internet meetings to achieve this. Juha Hakala talked about the composition of the working group. He meant that the working group is a divided community in that sense that there are a technical community and a bibliographic community that rarely meets and it would be good if the technical community could learn from the bibliographic community and vice versa. The work has implications to a broader community that never shows up. NN from Internet Society said that other communities like ORCID or medical communities don't show up because URN's are not well understood. Leslie Daigle meant that the working group might struggle to meet its ultimate goal if there isn't broader participation from other communities. Peter Saint-Andre mentioned that there have been a lot of name space registrations but he was unsure on how to reach out to them and get them to participate in the work. Juha Hakala mentioned that Handle system has been handed over to ITU and wondered what implications this might have for the work at IETF. Peter Saint-Andre relayed a comment from jabber about TC 46 (see Jabber for more info). Juha Hakala responded that he hoped that once the work is done within IETF it could be introduced to TC 46. Peter Saint-Andre stressed the need to think this through before going forward with something like this. Session closed