Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....

Maybe this was already discussed, but I’m in favor of a distributed ID system than a single, central system.

Take DNS. Or Java namespace. Their prefix comes from domain names authors own, which is unique, then authors can define whatever the rest. If a publisher wants to use ISBN, they could use, for instance, <epub://isbn-international.org/123456789>.

Since what we want is to identify publications, as long as authors or publications agree to use consistent domains/postfixes, I guess we can guarantee the uniqueness.

Maybe there are more use cases for the ID more than identifying publications? Use cases I have in mind are for links between publications and OA, these I think distributed system can do.

/koji

On Sep 25, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> On 24 Sep 2014, at 23:14 , Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote:
> 
>> True. It’s a cluttered road.
> 
> We are in a really dangerous business!
> 
> Ivan
> 
>> 
>> On 9/24/14, 5:12 PM, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:16 , LAURA DAWSON <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes, Bowker were a DOI registration agency and I can tell you that the
>>>> associated systems and metadata were the primary reason DOIs for trade
>>>> books (as opposed to STEM/scholarly) never took off.
>>>> 
>>>> So you see, Ivan, the road to book URIs is littered with a couple of
>>>> corpses.
>>> 
>>> It’s not just books.  I was on a project that needed something for
>>> recordings many years ago, and that road was also strewn with corpses.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 9/24/14, 3:13 PM, "Bill Kasdorf" <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Actually, the DOI _is_ used for this, mainly by scholarly/STM
>>>>> publishers,
>>>>> as well as for chapters of books--typically one DOI for the book and a
>>>>> DOI for each chapter (and sometimes DOIs at even lower component
>>>>> levels,
>>>>> most often for figures and tables). And these are _agnostic_ as to
>>>>> format, they typically mean "the book" and "the chapter" in the
>>>>> abstract
>>>>> sense. When you click on one of these DOIs you are usually then given
>>>>> your choice of what format, whether you have access, how to obtain
>>>>> access, etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But it requires the associated systems, metadata, registration agency,
>>>>> etc. to make it work. To belabor a point, though, in that context it
>>>>> does
>>>>> work. There are a gazillion of them. The whole scholarly/STM ecosystem
>>>>> is
>>>>> now dependent on DOIs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Those that use the DOI for this use CrossRef DOIs, which _should_ be
>>>>> expressed as URIs (and increasingly are).
>>>>> 
>>>>> But all that is purely under the control of the publisher (including
>>>>> what
>>>>> the DOI links to and what that destination provides--not necessarily
>>>>> the
>>>>> content itself); it doesn't address "work" in the way librarians mean
>>>>> "work," and it requires the systems I mentioned (including the Handle
>>>>> system on which DOI is based). It would not work for our need to point
>>>>> to
>>>>> the "work itself" or some component of the work. So the answer in a
>>>>> purely standard web-world sense is still no.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --Bill K
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Laura Dawson [mailto:Laura.Dawson@bowker.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:55 PM
>>>>> To: Ivan Herman; Graham Bell
>>>>> Cc: Laura Dawson; Phil Madans; Bill Kasdorf; W3C Public Digital
>>>>> Publishing IG Mailing List
>>>>> Subject: Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....
>>>>> 
>>>>> As it stands now, no. So a book's "home" on the web (regardless of
>>>>> edition) is not standardizable at this point unless you want to go down
>>>>> the DOI road (please let's not go down the DOI road).
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/24/14, 4:13 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for all the interesting discussion...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However: all this is to say that there does not seem to be any
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> (and viable) option to uniquely identify (preferably through a URI) a
>>>>>> 'work' (whether in the ISTC or the FRBR sense). Which is a problem for
>>>>>> metadata as well as for archiving. :-( Tell me I am wrong, please...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 24 Sep 2014, at 24:19 , Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And they can be treated this way in ONIX too. As I said,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> they are not (strictly) an attribute of the ISBN, though they may be
>>>>>>>> presented as such in various systems
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> NB repeatable because the ISBN is associated directly with only one
>>>>>>> work, but can be indirectly associated (through that work) with
>>>>>>> several other works.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 23 Sep 2014, at 21:12, LAURA DAWSON wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, even at Bowker we made them a repeatable attribute on the ISBN
>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: "Madans, Phil" <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com>
>>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Laura Dawson <ljndawson@gmail.com>, Graham Bell
>>>>>>>> <graham@editeur.org>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>,
>>>>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>>>> Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Digital Publishing IG Mailing List
>>>>>>>> <public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I stand corrected on the assignment of the ISTC. Bad choice of
>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>> I was speaking more on how I would have to manage them internally on
>>>>>>>> the systems level―that's how I think about these things―and that
>>>>>>>> would be as an attribute.  That  all depends on how titles systems
>>>>>>>> are structured, and I'm not saying ours is the best way to do
>>>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>>> but I think the way we do it is how most do it these days. From a
>>>>>>>> practical standpoint, I'm not sure how else I could handle them. IF
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> publish an English and Spanish edition of a work, and the ISTC's are
>>>>>>>> different, then they would be attributes of the ISBNs so that I
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> keep them linked internally.  We are already doing this, as is most
>>>>>>>> everyone else, and I think that is why the ISTC was such a hard
>>>>>>>> sell.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Phil Madans | Executive Director of Digital Publishing Technology |
>>>>>>>> Hachette Book Group | 237 Park Avenue NY 10017 |212-364-1415 |
>>>>>>>> phil.madans@hbgusa.com
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: LAURA DAWSON <ljndawson@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org>, Phil Madans
>>>>>>>> <phil.madans@hbgusa.com>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>,
>>>>>>>> Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Digital Publishing IG Mailing
>>>>>>>> List <public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Bowker was an ISTC registration agency until recently. We pulled out
>>>>>>>> because of the lack of support in the US, and refer the few curious
>>>>>>>> to Nielsen.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org>
>>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 2:09 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Phil Madans <Phil.Madans@hbgusa.com>, Laura Dawson
>>>>>>>> <ljndawson@gmail.com>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>,
>>>>>>>> Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Digital Publishing IG Mailing
>>>>>>>> List <public-digipub-ig-comment@w3.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: As an aside, a possibly interesting read....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What Phil and Laura have written certainly summarises -- and
>>>>>>>> illustrates -- the debate over identifiers.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But the text below (from Phil) is a little misleading.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Whether an ISTC
>>>>>>>>> is a real work Identifier or not is a matter of debate. I disagree
>>>>>>>>> that ii  is. It is actually an attribute of the ISBN―-hat is how
>>>>>>>>> they are assigned.
>>>>>>>>> Different ISBNs of the same master content might have different
>>>>>>>>> ISTC's.
>>>>>>>>> Translations for instance.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The 'rules' of the ISTC say that translations are by definition
>>>>>>>> different works, and MUST have different ISTCs (though those ISTCs
>>>>>>>> will be related to each other -- one is a 'derived work', and this
>>>>>>>> close relationship is recorded in the registration metadata for the
>>>>>>>> ISTCs themselves). This contrasts with library practice, where
>>>>>>>> 'work'
>>>>>>>> is something at a higher level and two translations are actually
>>>>>>>> termed two 'expressions' of the same 'work'. In library terms, the
>>>>>>>> ISTC is an expression identifier. See the attached PDF (a slide from
>>>>>>>> a training session that I deliver fairly regularly) for a summary of
>>>>>>>> how the <indecs> model on which ISTC and ONIX are based compares
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the FRBR library model. There is -- as far as I know -- no public
>>>>>>>> identifier that works at the FRBR:work level, though libraries may
>>>>>>>> have internal IDs.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And I'm pretty sure ISTCs can be assigned without an ISBN (and
>>>>>>>> without any product ID at all, in fact) -- they are not (strictly)
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> attribute of the ISBN, though they may be presented as such in
>>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>> They can be registered based on a manuscript, prior to there being a
>>>>>>>> product.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, there's no doubt that ISTC has so far proved
>>>>>>>> unpopular among publishers, for some of the reasons Laura and Phil
>>>>>>>> list, and its actual usage is minimal.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Graham Bell
>>>>>>>> EDItEUR
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7503 6418
>>>>>>>> Mob: +44 7887 754958
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> EDItEUR Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in
>>>>>>>> England no 2994705. Registered Office: United House, North Road,
>>>>>>>> London
>>>>>>>> N7 9DP, UK. Website: http://www.editeur.org
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended
>>>>>>>> recipient, please notify the sender, delete immediately, and
>>>>>>>> understand that no disclosure or reliance on the information herein
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> permitted.
>>>>>>>> Hachette Book Group may monitor email to and from our network.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>>>>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>>>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>>>>>> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> David Singer
>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C 
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2014 04:08:01 UTC