Re: Revised registration request for URN:NAN

Thank you, Stephanie and Juha.

I will ask IANA to add this namespace to the registry.

Peter

On 8/4/23 1:05 AM, Palek, Stephanie wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> I approve as well and have no further comments.
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> 
> Stephanie
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Von:* urn <[email protected]> im Auftrag von Hakala, Juha E 
> <[email protected]>
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 4. August 2023 07:11:15
> *An:* Peter Saint-Andre; KA Urnnan; [email protected]
> *Betreff:* Re: [urn] Revised registration request for URN:NAN
> Hello,
> 
> I approve of this registration, and look forward to the co-operation 
> between the National Library and the National Archive in the 
> implementation of this new identifier system.
> 
> Juha
> 
> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä: urn <[email protected]> Puolesta Peter Saint-Andre
> Lähetetty: torstai 3. elokuuta 2023 21.31
> Vastaanottaja: KA Urnnan <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Aihe: Re: [urn] Revised registration request for URN:NAN
> 
> Hello Lauri,
> 
> Thank you for this note and for the updated registration request. I 
> approve of registration. Once we hear back from other members of the 
> expert review team, I can work with you on a few small editorial matters 
> and ask IANA to complete the registration.
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 8/1/23 9:59 AM, KA Urnnan wrote:
>> Dear recipients,
>> 
>> Thank you all for an elightening conversation and on-point corrections 
>> to the registration request, and apologies for the tardiness of my 
>> reply; I was on vacation, and due to technical equipment failure was 
>> unable to access my work email. I have amended the request according 
>> to the helpful suggestions. Please find  the resubmission attached.
>> 
>> On a general note, I could try to conceptualize the difference between 
>> NBN and NAN. The main difference stems from the identified material 
>> itself, and reflects the well established practices of division of 
>> responsibility between libraries and archives. While the NBN is 
>> assigned to published material that does not have publisher-issued 
>> identifier and concerns mainly works of literary/bookish nature (e.g. 
>> master’s theses, ephemera), the NAN will be assigned to archival 
>> material. Or in other words unique, unpublished and often non-literary 
>> (in the strict sense) primary sources (e.g. letters, charters, 
>> minutes, manuscripts, maps, drawings, etc.). While NBN could be 
>> assigned to e.g. a self-published autobiography lacking an ISBN, and 
>> it would identify the (in FRBR terms) work-expression-manifestation 
>> -levels, NANs could be assigned to the work’s authorial working 
>> manuscript and notes associated to it, and similar item-level objects 
>> (again in FRBR-terms). In other words, there should be not much 
>> conceptual or factual overlap in the material that NBN and NAN refer 
>> to. The other main difference lies in the organisation of materials. 
>> Archival sources are organised into hierarchical structure consisting 
>> of archival entities, series and units, all of which can be given 
>> unique identifiers. Thus the resource which is identified with a NAN number is very much different from that identified with a NBN number.
>> 
>> Mainly for these conceptual reasons the NBN as identifier for archival 
>> material is out of the question. It has well established and defined 
>> usage which does not lend itself for use with archival sources.
>> Assigning NBN’s for our material would only create confusion in the 
>> field. The only main exception (that I can think of) to the division 
>> of material described above concerns some older historical sources, 
>> mainly of literary nature (e.g. late medieval manuscripts and 
>> letters). Such material can be found in both libraries’ and archives’ 
>> collections for historical reasons. Yet, this material has only rarely 
>> been assigned any NBN:s, and the overlap remains therefore minimal in 
>> terms of magnitude as well as conceptually. Since the practices 
>> between archives and libaries are well established, I found it 
>> unnecessary to list this as a restriction in the registration. While 
>> it leaves open the definition of pertinent material, this might also 
>> mean that URN:NAN could help to fill in the gaps left by URN:NBN in 
>> the identification of archival collections in libraries. It also 
>> leaves the door open for national archives to implement their own 
>> practices as they see fit. Hopefully this attempt of clarification answers at least some of the questions raised.
>> 
>> Regarding the informational RFC: at the moment I would personally see 
>> it as an overextension of preliminary definitions. Once URN:NAN has 
>> been implemented by us and at least a few other national archives, 
>> however, I believe it would be definitely useful to write one. At that 
>> point in time we would have experience of usage, understanding of the 
>> most pertinent questions, borderline cases and problems encountered, 
>> and would be the better able to formulate necessary clarifications to 
>> using URN:NAN.
>> 
>> Looking forward to hearing from you,
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Lauri Leinonen
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> urn mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn