Talk:ISBN/Archive 2

1064:

assigned task, when asking for a good book to read from a friend, or when a family member expresses an interest in a particular, exact edition of a book (as part of a gist wish list perhaps). So just the basics (the details and real arcana can go at the end), like: What is an ISBN? What do the parts mean? What is it used for? (this one varies according to next item) By who? Who chooses it? Is it mandatory? Are they unique? Are they the same all over the world? How can I get one for my self-published book? Does it cost money? When did they start issuing them? What about books published (and not altered/revised) before then? Why did publishers/booksellers decide they needed ISBNs?, and so on. Many of these are already answered, but even these are scattered about the article, where they might all be addressed in the first overview section, and then elaborated and amplified later. It's really more of an organizational issue, compounded with the distraction of the math discussion being featured early. I see this a lot with articles about prescription drugs, among other things, which often talk over the heads of even MDs (written by/for biochemists/pharmacologists, it would seem), to say nothing of laypeople.

262:

your sales list and find which publishers are generating how much income for you, by using the block IDs as publisher IDs (although a single publisher can have multiple IDs if they've bought multiple blocks). Publishers are encouraged to "buy big" rather than buying multiple smaller blocks, to keep the size of the lookup tables manageable and encourage the use of the blocks as publisher identifiers. So for instance, the ten-digit ISBN number for my 2005 copy of "Freakonomics" is 0-141-01901-8 ... the hyphenation tells me that Penguin Books seem to have bought the entire "141" block, which consists of a hundred thousand consecutive ISBN numbers. If I was a bookseller, this'd tell me that I could probably spot other Penguin titles on a printed spreadsheet by looking in the ISBN column for a "-141-", and because the company had bought so many numbers, it'd suggest that unless Penguin had bought additional separate blocks for special purposes, they'd be unlikely to have used up all 100,000 numbers, and that I could probably spot every other Penguin book on the spreadsheet by its -141- tag.

85:

partition ten-digit phone numbers into area codes and exchanges. Here, in your last example, 0 is a region code (denoting English speaking countries) and 12345 is a publisher ID. The 678 is used by the publisher to identify a specific book, and the 'whatever' is the check digit. If the ISBN authority issues -12345- to a specific publisher, then they will not issue any of its prefixes. E.g. 1, 12, 123, 1234 would be off limits as publisher codes. You seem to be a computer person, so you see the logic of this! Unfortunately this means that only an entity that knows all the publisher codes of the world (like isbn.org) can hyphenate an arbitrary ISBN properly. In practice one can use isbn.org/converterpub.asp to hyphenate an ISBN that does not have the hyphens already.

1028:) to be lacking clarity and truly confusing. The tone, with the lack of deferential explanation to the non-mathematician, indicate an orientation other than towards readers, editors, or even librarians, which is to say ISBN users. When I read this article, I felt a bit like I had looked up telephone area codes and instead of seeing a list, I read a technical explanation of why the middle digit once could only be a '1' or '0' and how phone systems were badly fouled up for more than a year after other numerals were introduced. That wouldn't be helpful or appropriate for such an entry, and this one fails on the same account. 1059:

might help. Most of the information necessary to interpret ISBNs seems already to be present, though it is scattered over several sections (not at all uncommon for an article with multiple, successive writers and editors, none of whom truly collaborate, in the contemporaneous sense). Some amplification and elaboration of how ISBNs are used, by whom, and for what purpose might improve the article. Just imagine why someone, a non-specialist, might visit Knowledge to look up this topic. To the limited extent I have edited or added to articles, I have always had that in mind,

1032:

ISBNs is put forth as the central and most vital information on the subject. I don't think this is the case. For Knowledge users (as for most encyclopedias, except specialized or technical ones) who will most often be readers, booksellers, or others using/buying/selling/caring for books, the most sought information is simply how to parse or interpret an ISBN, followed by why they are needed or required, their history, the assigning body or authority, and finally by the more special interest information of the formulas and math/math theory that is here.

1199:

publisher codes in English and German were just randomly selected for them then there is no way their check digits in English and German with the same product code would lead to the same check digit every time. I noticed this systematic feature when looking at ISBNs on books on a shelf at a university library. For Springer, their language+publisher code a-bcd in ISBN-10 always has the feature that 10a + 9b + 8c + 7d = 3 mod 11. A random choice of digits for a,b,c,d would not behave like this!

1447:

ISBN you see in a record at the LOC to be valid. A clear policy of expunging the bad data may be easier to live with long term. If you add a check digit to the ISBN, what use do you anticipate making of it? If you let invalids flow through the system and go everywhere, how do you benefit from having a check digit?.. The 'shoulds' that you refer to above were (for the most part) not included in the main space article.

348:

really a language code, it's a code for a group of countries that (in most cases) happen to share a language. Any book issued by a publisher in that set of countries gets the given group identifier, regardless of the language of the book. That's how Springer can issue English-language books in Germany with group identifier '3'. And how a publisher in Iran (with group identifier 964) can issue a book in the

491:

publisher is going to have an ISBN, it needs a new number. So Google might hypothetically decide that to future-proof their numbering system, they want a block of a million consecutive ISBNs. Heck, they might decide that they want more, in which case, they either buy consecutive blocks of a million, or stretch to a "ten million" block.

517:). Does anyone have time to carefully study the remaining links and recommend here, on the Talk page, which ones we can do without? As an example, I think we have too many different links to 'conversion aids'. If we are going to keep all those links we at least we should at least add some text to the article about conversion. 1623:. Unless anyone objects I am planning to remove the phrase 'The check digit happens to coincide'. I actually don't see the problem with it, but I also don't see why it would have been considered advantageous by Springer in the first place. A coinciding check digit might increase the chances of mixing up two distinct ISBNs. 276:

assumed that the reader hasn't memorised a set of common publisher blocks IDs (and is more interested in the author and title info than the publisher), the ISBN number is used to uniquely identify a //book//, and the hyphens probably just serve to pad out a thirteen-digit EAN to an annoying seventeen characters. :(

1429:) but technically invalid ISBN number? Are they in the business of serving the customer, or in being ideologically pure? Is there an Merchant Code of Conduct for Handling ISBNs published somewhere that says merchants should thus abuse their potential customers? Forgive the rant, but this is ridiculous. 1590:

for the region codes, known as group identifiers. 0 and 1 cover the English-speaking countries. The less common language areas get longer and longer codes. For instance, Armenia gets its own group identifier, which is 99930. This leaves fewer digits to distinguish the publishers, but there are not as

1508:

balance is now redressed is something that can still be discussed. In terms of sourcing, I'm not sure how much further it's reasonable to go. If we assume that our users can click on a link, they can verify most of the observations for themselves. I could be more specific if you think that's useful.

1468:

Yes. Obviously it has some value, people use ISBNs to find actual books. The records exist to find the books, not vice versa. Expunging bad data is all well and good -- but is the "final solution" to burn (sorry, "expunge") the books that offend the checksum? My point is that this argument places

1190:

The point of using a prime modulus is that all positive integers less than it are relatively prime to it, and that makes the detection of all adjacent transposition errors feasible without much work needed. This is impossible for the standard weight-based modular check digit methods if the modulus

1078:

Another remark about the math and number theory: the predominant discussion on this talk page is about number theory and the math associated with the ISBN numbering system, and in combination with the emphasis (too much and too early in my opinion) on this in the article itself, it begs the question:

1063:

where I do have some level of expert knowledge of a subject. So, someone comes to this article after seeing an ISBN in a book ad, on an Amazon page, or on a copyright page, and is curious or unclear what it signifies. Also, someone is given an ISBN or told to look a book up via an ISBN as an employer

261:

The advantage of the separating hyphens is that it lets a book industry company's computer system recognise common recurring block IDs and cache the info for which publisher those block IDs correspond to without having to do a complete database search on the full number each time. You can run through

1614:

Some books have more than one language area code, e.g. A.M.Yaglom, Correlation Theory... , published by Springer Verlag has ISBN 0-387-96331-6 and ISBN 3-540-96331-6. Note that in this case Springer has publisher codes for both language areas, and chooses to use the same item number. The check digit

1035:

I am not myself a good candidate to do this editing. That person would more ideally be a librarian or bookseller who better understands and is more experienced in the pragmatics of ISBNs (and they are what else other than practical?), and who perhaps also understands the math at least well enough to

982:

It is unlikely this book was ever issued by a commercial publisher, so they got away with having a defective ISBN (one digit too short). I looked up that ISBN, as you corrected it, in the Library of Congress, the British Library and Amazon but it's not for sale or catalogued anywhere. Good thing the

531:

Is ISBN 13 less capable of detecting errors, or equally capable but less capable of detecting transposition errors which are perhaps one of the most common forms of errors (i.e. it's better at detecting other errors)? I presuming it's the later so I've clarified the article accordingly. Obviously if

1561:

I trimmed it to include only short, relevant facts and reordered them in terms of usage -- there are many more libraries that don't filter their ISBNs (mostly running Dynix, unless I'm terribly wrong) versus three online booksellers. I removed all conclusions about what "should" be done -- perhaps

1446:

The point you are making, I think, is, 'Bad data conceivably still has some value'. It's hard to disagree with that, but the management of the bad data can become very tedious. Certainly the U.S. Library of Congress has attempted to do that, off and on, but the net result is you can never trust an

1392:

Some book-ordering systems, like R.R.Bowker's Books In Print, will not even attempt to search for a book if given an invalid ISBN. It is clearly to the publishers' advantage to issue their books with valid ISBNs, although not all bookselling web sites will do the check. For instance www.amazon.com,

1275:

Wouldn't it be good to say something re. the origins of SBN codes. I had always assumed that ISBN codes came into operation in 1970, because it is on this date that you start finding the numbers appearing on the books themselves. As to the SBN codes, I notice, for instance, that an SBN code appears

1046:

Thanks for your comment. One way to handle this would be to split off a separate article that did the math bit. It would assist us in making this reform if you would identify a block of material that you think could be handled elsewhere. We need your input on what you consider to be the 'pragmatics

1031:

I don't propose that this information be removed, but rather that a more direct, practical, non-technical (in a mathematical sense) explication of ISBNs be added, and that perhaps the detailed math moved further down into the article. As it is, after the "Overview" section, the math associated with

431:

This tool appears to be intended for use by publishers. (Generates batches of ISBNs from a given publisher number). It's not clear how it would benefit the average Knowledge reader. The tool isbn.org/converterpub.asp is already cited in the article for validity checking of individual ISBNs and for

233:

The ISBN numbers are all numerically unique, and for most people's purposes, the hyphens are irrelevant. Any "lookup" software that can find individual books by their ISBN number won't need the hyphens, and should be able to pull up all the associated book info lodged on the central database(s) for

1291:

The ISBN page is a magnet for spam links. It happens that people will add items to the External Links section with no history comment and with no discussion on the talk page. When this happens, those links may be removed by other editors in regular cleanups. Please propose your new link here and

480:

It's not necessarily the case that all the 978 numbers have been //used//, but they've increasingly been bought and reserved by publishers, and if a new publisher appeared who was liable to want to buy a vast block of consecutive numbers, that possibility was getting increasingly difficult to deal

1633:

Actually, one advantage is that the item number and check digit don't depend on which prefix they get paired with. It's then possible to compute the check digit in isolation regardless of what prefix it's with, and so the check digit doubles as a check digit for the item number regardless of the

1198:

Concerning the footnote about Springer codes in English and German having the same check digit, I have no idea how publisher codes are assigned but it had to have been planned by Springer in some way to get the publisher codes they did; maybe they made a request or something. Because if their

289:

Short answer - the hyphens might still be useful to some people in the book industry, but they're not really much use to the end-customer. They'll help a savvy bookshop staff member to find your book by searching by publisher even if you've gotten one of the last digits wrong, but that's probably

275:

So the hyphens do (did?) have some purpose for some companies in the supply chain, for stock control. If you sell a lot of Penguin titles, the -141- is probably comparatively easy to recognise on a spreadsheet printout. But for the final customers and for academic and online citations, where it's

1182:

As for modulus 20, it is false that alternating weights 1 and 3 will detect all adjacent transposition errors. A system of weights will detect all adjacent transposition errors only when the difference of consecutive weights is relatively prime to the modulus in use. Since 3-1 = 2, there's a

1058:

It is the second through fourth sections/paragraphs, following the initial section under the heading "Overview". These go into great detail about the formulas for arriving at the check digits of both the 10 and 13 digit ISBN. Yes, splitting this to another article, with appropriate pointer/link,

457:

The official documents don't shed much light on this. However, there is an advantage in the 979 category that they won't use the existing publisher codes, so there is some hope that the 979 range will hold a lot more numbers than the existing 978 range. If the present codes were used, adding 979

347:

The article uses the phrase 'Language code', but there is no recognition of that phrase at isbn.org. I propose replacing it with 'Group identifier', which is their official term. Some extra words would be added to explain how it's generally used. Let me know if anyone objects. In fact, it's not

173:

Here in Knowledge I suggest that, when adding a book reference, you use either an unhyphenated ISBN or a hyphenated one that you're sure is correct. Certainly you can't make up your own hyphenation! If you copy the hyphenated number from the book itself or from a catalog it is probably correct.

1507:

See what you think of my attempt to remove the 'shoulds', which happened in the latest version. The ISBN article (before my addition of the 'Actual Use' section), seemed to have no concept at all of what you might use a check digit for, which I thought left it somewhat unbalanced. Whether the

490:

Suppose that Google Books eventually decides to start offering reprinted hardcopies of its massive scanned collection of out-of-print, non-copyright titles ... and wants to apply EAN barcodes to their reprints. Since EAN is a product code linked to the publisher, if a reprinted book from a new

84:

The short answer: yes, the book is uniquely identified without the hyphens, and no, your three different examples are not possible. There is only one standard way of hyphenating a given ISBN. The hyphens are (so far as I can tell) just a way of making the number more human readable, the way we

247:

However, the numbers are originally "sold on" to publishers in consecutive blocks of ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, etc. in escalating powers of ten. By only selling blocks in powers of ten, the issuing agencies ensure that all the members of a given "sold" block will have the same initial

1186:

The choice of weights has nothing at all to do with the length of the weights in terms of their digits (using 1, 10, 100, 1000, and so on, say) and everything to do with the divisibility relations among the weights and the modulus. At the very least, a sensible system of weights should be

1091:

would prompt that suspicion? Second, once one does suspect an ISBN of being invalid, is there a straightforward method for checking the number? Maybe that was covered in the article, but I couldn't work it out amid all mathematical discussion. I'll add that to my suggestions: in addition to

98:

OK, thanks. Yes, I do see the logic, and it works the way I thought it should work. Then (to just grab a book at hand), with ISBN 0-385-51010-1, publisher 385 (Doubleday) book 51010, there would not be a publisher 3855 with a book 1010, because that would result in the same digits.

48:

0 English speaking areas 1 English speaking areas 2 French speaking areas 3 German speaking areas 4 Japan 5 Former USSR 60x various 7 China 8x various: see the cite above for details 9x various: see the cite above for details 92 International organizations as publishers

1092:

re-focusing on user-oriented infoout the ISBN and system as I propose above, the math and validity checking procedures might be rewritten to enable someone without more than good arithmetic and very basic algebra to actually and practically check an ISBN for validity.

947:

There's not much need to have such an add-on for Germany and France (or for the rest of the Euro-zone), since those countries use the same currency (Euro) - as distinct from the US/CAN situation of using the same name ('Dollar') for different currencies (USD/CAD)

753:. An oversimplified answer is that you need a list of all the publisher codes in the world to be able to hyphenate an arbitrary ISBN. In practice I think there are a few shortcuts, so a successful algorithm may not need the complete list. Open up the web form at 672:

When I worked in bookstores, some members of the staff would pronounce ISBN as "is-ben." I'm pretty sure this is a case of bookstore industry jargon/lingo. What is the best way to source this? (Thanks for the heads-up about this discussion, hc5duke.)

738:

Is it correct that there is no way to see the correct hyphenation of a given ISBN without consulting an external source, like the book itself etc.? (I.e. given 012345689 may it theoretically be hyphened 0-12-34567-89, but also 0123-4567-89)? Thanks.

174:

Ambiguous EANs aren't possible since one digit string corresponds to at most one book, regardless of hyphens. As to whether hyphens are compulsory, Amazon shows ISBNs on their site with either zero or one hyphen and we can't do anything about that!

682:

Not really sure how you would reference that - I think the way you phrased it was changed over time so that it looked like "is-ben" was the main pronunciation. I don't think anyone would have a problem with "sometimes pronounced as" or something.-

1178:

The suggestion about using very large weights with a very large modulus misses the point: ISBN only uses 10 symbols (along with the X in ISBN-10). Commerce is based on 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, so something with modulus 100000000000 is not sensible.

248:

sequence of digits, and if that shared initial sequence is separated off from the remainder of the number with a hyphen, it can be used as the block's "ID number". That ID can then be tied to the publisher who happened to buy that run of numbers.

1495:

for any of these opinions. Finally, though the policy surrounding invalid ISBNs is doubtless a very important issue, the Knowledge article is a place to report verifiable information, not a place to try to influence public policy at the LOC.

983:

book is available online! Your calculated check digit seems correct to me. When you encounter an actual 'old' 9-digit ISBNs you can usually convert it by putting a 0 in front. The one printed in this book is not old, but bad, in my opinion.

1740:

I can see the interest of doing this, but imagine it could be criticized because of WP:NOT (a directory). Conceivably each publisher's ISBN prefix could be added to the Infobox shown in their respective article. See for example the one in

690:

If some smart aleck pronounced U.S.A. as "us-sa", that would not be enough evidence to claim that it is sometimes pronounced that way. There is no vowel in the second syllable of ISBN and ISSN, so they were intended to be spelled out.

1745:. That way, small publishers that might not be notable won't have to be included. Since the user can reach Special:booksources just by clicking on an ISBN, they can find out the publisher for a given ISBN in one or two clicks anyway. 1313:

There is a good free ISBN10-ISBN13 Conversion tool online. Difference between this tool and others is that it can handle batch ISBN conversions, unlike the others, that simply do them one-by-one. I thought it might be a helpful link.

1023:

I think that this article would be greatly improved of the explanation of the format of ISBNs and the method of their calculation/assignment were simplified. As it is, I found the mathematics (expecially the detailed discussion of

700:

I see how edits over time changed to imply that the abbreviation was always pronounced so, but I certainly didn't intend that. Also, there is plenty of precedent for some abbreviations to be pronounced as though they had vowels:

1324:

Mass conversion of ISBNs is unlikely to be of much importance to ordinary Knowledge readers. (Have you ever needed to do a mass conversion, yourself?) Since we are all vigilant about spam, I think this one should be excluded.

1230:

Well how about weights 1000000000 100000000 10000000 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 10 1 modulus 100000000000000? And we talk about primes, 2 is a prime, but not very useful. Do we mean "co-prime with and larger than 10"?

1191:

is even. Of course the prime 2 is useless. But the *mathematical* features of primes make a difference, so the choice of modulus 11 (not too far from 10, which has ad hoc historical relevance to humans) is sensible.

1469:

the cart in front of the horse: information systems exist to serve the purposes of their users. In either case, this doesn't belong in this article because it is pure opinion. I could reply with my own opinions, but

767:

There is a list of ranges which tells you where the hyphens should be placed, but I have temporarily mislaid my link. In the meantime, there are several people who fix ISBN formats: maybe you could ask them? HTH HAND

532:

transposition errors are more common then other types of errors then by not being so good at detecting transposition errors ISBN 13 may be less likely to detect errors but it would still arguably be equally capable

58:

I know that ISBNs are 10 digits: language digit, dash, publisher code, dash, book number, dash, check digit. Is a book uniquely identified if dashes aren't given? I.e. could there be different books with ISBNs:

1387:

Since the ISBN check digit is a means of finding and correcting errors, it is of interest to know if and when the actual checks get performed. Does anyone object if the following words are added to the article?

550:

the 10-digit ISBN check digit, which is the last digit of the 10 digit ISBN, is calculated on a modulus 11 with weights 10 to 2, using X instead of 10 where 10 would occur as a check digit (and 0 instead of

971:

with the old ISBN 2-88145-076. 9-digit ISBNs are not recognized by the Wiki ISBN magic but, using the article, I was able to manually calculate the check digit to give ISBN 2-88145-076-8. Again, thank you.

1393:

as of October 2006, listed some books for sale that were published with invalid ISBNs. Essentially they are passing along to the customer without further ado whatever ISBN was assigned by the publisher.

713:("tickle"), and so forth. It's certainly not universal, but not uncommon. What about using the phrase "sometimes pronounced (IPA symbols for is-ben) in the book industry" instead? That should be clear. — 578:

I think it is consistent. The language may be a bit loose, but the point is that any number that is a multiple of 11 will give a check digit of 0. Can you think of a better way of saying it?

648:

I was just going to add the same comment. In the UK, I have only ever encountered the pronunciation "I-S-B-N". Can any definitive sources be provided supporting one or the other position?

625:

What's the source on the pronounciation for "ISBN"? I've never heard anyone pronounce it this way. It's not a word or an acronym, it's an initialism. So, it should be pronounced "I-S-B-N."

1143:

This borders on Trivia (which is discouraged by Knowledge) for someone interested in finding out about ISBN numbers. It smacks of anti-Chinese politics which I think has no place here

861:

I have come across a book with only one page and is of ISBN number. I would like to check if it is a valid number assigned to the book. Please add the knowledge of that. Thanks.

1480:

The final section which preaches how encyclopedias "can" make the world a better place carries the same tone, with "can" holding the place of "should." Furthermore it violates

399:

I think it has to do with the possible transfer of ISBN-10 on wiki to ISBN-13. Maybe too because we need to preserve code that is seen by bots as bad coding that needs fixing?

128:

Barcode format compatibility is maintained, because (aside from the group breaks) the ISBN-13 barcode format is identical to the EAN barcode format of existing ISBN-10s.

1227:

system of weights used to compute a check digit based on modulus 10 (or any even modulus) can detect all single digit errors and adjacent transposition errors."

1478:

The next place where errors can be caught is at the bookseller: they should keep bad ISBNs out of their catalog, and not accept orders that request bad ISBNs.

1187:

relatively prime to the modulus to get the most common error (single-digit errors) always detected. This follows from Bezout's identity in number theory.

588:

The check-digit substitution in the article is incorrect and should be fixed. The algorithm is to substitute a 0 for a 10, and substitute an "X" for 11.

121:

It's different to what I thought. I have definitely heard before that people "must be careful to ensure the groupings are retained" when writing ISBN's.

1654:

23:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Edit: Looks like someone else pointed this out a little further up. (I'm the guy that wrote the 68.88.69.227 comment.) --

1577:

I thought that the format was one digit for the language, four digits for the publisher, four digits for the item number, and one digit for the check.--

881:

Please sign your comments using four tildes before pressing 'Save page', i.e. ~~~~, and ask the question more clearly. What book are we speaking of?

1006: 994: 628: 558: 921:

Question: are there any other examples for other countries than US/CAN in this respect? Has anyone seen price add-ons say in Germany or France?

207:

An ISBN should be printed on the reverse of the title page . It must be printed exactly as given somewhere inside the book for it to be valid.

219: 159: 810: 632: 562: 1133: 1206: 868: 1129:, I see only the simpler phrase 'group identifier'. I would like to remove 'code number' from the article unless there are objections. 1009:'s Library and Research Service, and have asked them for the correct ISBN. Until they get back to me I have listed the defective one. 964: 1627: 1036:

re-write the article to include the mathematical info in a more clear and appropriate (in tone, position, and proportion) manner.

591: 932:

I have been told (BSIG) that price add-on is specific to US market only. To be specific it's mandated only by Barnes & Noble

447:

How does ISBN-13 solve the "pending shortage in certain ISBN categories" if all it does is prefix an ISBN-10 with 978 or 979?

1562:

someone has a source in a library journal about how invalid ISBNs should be treated as a matter of information hygiene?

1682: 609: 354:. This clarification might benefit Knowledge's ISBN-fixers when searching for books in languages other than English. 1158:

If the section had a reference, I'd be OK with keeping it. Since there are none, if you want to remove it, go ahead.

1047:

of ISBNs', since that's what you apparently feel is missing. Or is it present here, and just obscured by the math?

786:(pretty useful since it is continuously updated and machine-readable). Maybe the link should go into the article? -- 1296: 1760: 1545: 1523:

The recent changes are a good start. The article still needs sources for each statement, because it is all still

1260: 1236: 223: 163: 1473:

is something we should stick to. I guess there's no source for this? No "code of conduct" as I mentioned above?

912:

Book Industry Study Group suggests a certain 5-digit price add-on structure for the ISBN-13 with price add-on.

393: 1690: 968: 802: 636: 566: 872: 1210: 1277: 1125:

Recent edits have replaced 'group identifier' with 'group identifier code number.' Looking at the web site

1255:

shows that 3,1,3,1... with mod 20 will pick up all single digit errors and adjacent transposition errors.

773: 422: 1292:

explain its value (with reference to what is already available) if you don't want it to be cleaned out.

757:

and enter the number, if you want to determine the right placement of the hyphens in a particular ISBN.

1722: 1707:

Has anyone ever thought of starting an ISBN Prefix List page with coresponding publishers? For example:

1651: 1588: 1540:

It's not really a SELF becasue it refers to WP in a way that an article in another encyclopedia could.

949: 1408:. Is there a source for all of these "shoulds" or "should" this section be removed from the article? 1194:

There are some articles by Joe Gallian about check digit methods which explain the math behind this.

840:

which prompts me to request the article writer to either append these two links or amend the content.

1757: 1742: 1712: 1542: 1350: 1257: 1233: 1202: 1163: 1093: 1065: 1037: 864: 740: 605: 597: 403: 349: 179: 1689:

format (with a permalink). I did not post it here first because it is an extremely useful tool for

1372: 1107: 805: 389: 316: 32: 1315: 496: 295: 935: 924: 601: 1339: 1019:

Less math and math theory and more practical information please. This is confusing and unclear.

592:

http://www.bisg.org/isbn-13/conversions.html#Algorithm%20for%20checking%20the%2010-digit%20ISBN

1148: 769: 649: 513:

At present this article has 20 external links. (Probably too many to have it be accepted as a

151:

The use of hyphens or spaces has no lexical significance and is purely to enhance readability.

103: 73: 415: 1674: 1476:

I did overstate the "shoulds" -- there is only one in this article, in the second sentence:

1010: 973: 896: 848: 791: 714: 674: 665:. I'm adding a note in his talk page, and for the time being removing the pronunciation. - 658: 1746: 1717: 1624: 1592: 1509: 1448: 1394: 1346: 1326: 1302: 1159: 1130: 1111: 1048: 984: 895:". Unfortunately, the positions of the hyphens matter (omitting them worked best for me). 882: 758: 579: 518: 514: 459: 433: 374: 355: 197: 175: 86: 1102:

In practice you wouldn't do the math yourself, you would submit the questionable ISBN at

39: 1634:

language area prefix. A given pair of 4-digit prefixes will have this property if (10*x

783: 385: 1603: 1528: 1492: 1488: 1481: 1405: 1365: 1361: 1005:

is French speaking which would explain the leading "2". I found a contact page for the

832: 533: 358: 309: 1578: 1524: 1470: 1343: 492: 291: 1673:—–Free tool to generate an alphabetized bibliography from a list of ISBN numbers in 894:

They don't have the book, only the ISBN. They should Google on "ISBN <number: -->

1731: 1694: 1252: 1144: 692: 684: 666: 555:

0 instead of 11? No number mod 11 could possibly result in 11 in the first place.

400: 142:

The elements must each be separated clearly by hyphens or spaces when displayed in

100: 70: 801:

no, it's not correct. the hyphen placement can be determined from only the number.

448: 124:

Actually, I was going to ask a similar question prompted by the article statement:

1754:

This could certainly be useful in WP space. Also I would like to see 0-00 -: -->

1563: 1532: 1497: 1430: 1409: 1265: 1241: 843:... or you could make the edits yourself. This is an open source encyclopaedia. 824:

Unfortunately, this article doesn't tell, which lead me to find the answer from

787: 1404:

I find this section very POV, with plenty of "shoulds" and even a violation of

1335: 1120: 1110:

had a checking link you can click on but I looked just now and didn't find it.

138:

I see now in the ISBN Users' Manual (International Edition, Fifth Edition) that

1083:

in practice uses this to verify the validity of a given ISBN? What I mean is,

1610:

When adding an example two months ago an editor used the following language:

1527:. No other encyclopedias include ISBNs that I know of -- this is an oblique 1765: 1678: 1655: 1550: 212: 17: 1601: 1283:

When and by whom were SBNs conceived? What is the story behind prefix '1'?

1686: 1106:, or some other site that offers free checking. I had heard that our own 1749: 1734: 1697: 1658: 1620: 1595: 1581: 1566: 1535: 1512: 1500: 1451: 1433: 1412: 1397: 1376: 1354: 1329: 1318: 1310: 1305: 1278:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0116700750/026-0325148-9310042

1167: 1152: 1114: 1103: 1096: 1068: 1051: 1040: 1013: 987: 976: 952: 938: 927: 899: 885: 851: 827: 814: 795: 776: 761: 754: 749:

This is discussed somewhat in previous entries on this Talk page, like

743: 717: 695: 677: 652: 640: 613: 582: 570: 536: 521: 500: 462: 451: 436: 425: 320: 299: 227: 183: 167: 107: 89: 77: 1338:

Here is a list of ISBN publisher codes for the English language (from

1002: 998: 135:

could the EAN barcode ever misidentify a book (because of ambiguity)?

1183:

problem here with modulus 20, which is not relatively prime to 2.

1121:'Code number' is verbose and is not used in the official documents 993:

Yep, looks like the ISBN is defective. The publication was by the

304:

Penguin didn't just buy the 141s - they bought the 140s too. They

1768: 1553: 1268: 1244: 702: 915:* First digit is "5" for $ US * First digit is "4" for $ CAN 710: 706: 1340:

http://blog.openlibrary.org/2009/07/20/isbn-publisher-codes/

383:

Why is this article opted out of bot attention entirely? --

1425:

when a potential customer asks them for a well-known (e.g.

1670: 1650:) mod 11 computes to the same value for both prefixes. -- 1383:

Testing of invalid ISBNs within the publishing industry

918:

Add-on seems to be mandatory for several US retailers.

662: 352: 1126: 40:

http://www.isbn-international.org/converter/ranges.htm

1074:

Showing the non-math type how to check ISBN validity.

784:

http://www.isbn-international.org/converter/ranges.js

833:

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/iso/tc46sc9/isbn.htm

657:Ditto - I've never heard this in the U.S. It seems 332: 1421:Let me get this straight. A book merchant should 1087:would one suspect a given ISBN of being invalid? 963:I just wanted to thank whoever wrote the section 1344:for the publishing houses starting with 2 and 3. 339:_Group_identifier-2007-01-17T22:22:00.000Z": --> 334:_Group_identifier-2007-01-17T22:22:00.000Z": --> 290:about the only useful thing you'll see from it. 308:have bought the 142s through 149s inclusive. -- 1591:many of them for the smaller language groups. 443:"pending shortage in certain ISBN categories" 418:on official site of International ISBN Agency 8: 1276:on HSMO publications as early as 1959. Cf: 471:Yep, "979" serves as an overflow for "978". 1001:. Although the publication is in English, 213:https://www.enett2.com/ThorpeBowker/ISBN/ 995:International Committee of the Red Cross 750: 458:would provide a factor of two increase. 1360:Blogs are generally frowned upon, see 432:conversion of an ISBN-10 to ISBN-13. 7: 1619:There is more discussion of this on 1104:http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp 828:http://www.bisg.org/isbn-13/faq.html 755:http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp 481:with using the remaining 978 codes. 1491:in content and tone, and does not 847:are the article writer. Have fun! 509:Need proposed list of links to cut 24: 1287:Discuss links here (spam concern) 1139:ISBNs and Chinese book censorship 782:The best list I have found is at 1602:'Happens to coincide' marked by 1587:No, it's more complicated. See 365: 362: 344: 338: 333: 1487:So, the section is definitely 1134:02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 501:02:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 321:18:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 300:01:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 1: 1750:19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 1735:01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 1698:15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 1596:04:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 1582:14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 1567:02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1536:02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1513:02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1501:01:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1452:00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1434:00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1413:00:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1398:20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1311:ISBN10 to 13 batch conversion 1168:16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 1153:11:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 614:05:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 463:23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 452:21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 228:04:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 184:04:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 168:04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 1628:19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 1336:List of ISBN publisher codes 1306:21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 437:02:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 426:22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 416:ISBN generator and converter 404:16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 394:01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 360:22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 108:23:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 90:21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 78:20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 1342:where there is also a link 1115:21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 1097:23:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 1069:21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 1052:19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 1041:19:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 953:20:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 796:14:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 1788: 1659:00:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 1531:so I'm going to pull it. 1377:15:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 1355:13:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 1014:23:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 988:02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 977:22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 900:22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 537:15:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 522:16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 939:14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 928:13:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 886:14:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 852:23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 777:11:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 762:04:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 744:03:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 696:22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 678:17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 1755:0-19 in the WP article. 1174:Remarks on math for ISBN 815:10:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 718:17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 653:11:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 641:07:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 583:17:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) 571:05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 350:Azeri dialect of Turkish 215:(ISBN Agency Australia). 1330:21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1319:21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 820:Why 978 & 979...??? 687:2007-06-19 17:35 (UTC) 669:2007-06-18 08:59 (UTC) 366:_Group_identifier": --> 363:_Group_identifier": --> 359:_Group_identifier": --> 345:_Group_identifier": --> 155:(Italics are original.) 69:0-12345-678-whatever? 1723:Les Éditions Gallimard 1713:Wiley Publishing, Inc. 1251:And in fact, a little 965:Check digit in ISBN-10 959:Check digit in ISBN-10 410:Suggestion to add link 336:'Language code' -: --> 196:Thanks for the input, 1743:John Wiley & Sons 631:comment was added by 561:comment was added by 1718:O'Reilly Media, Inc. 1615:happens to coincide. 1471:no original research 751:#Question about ISBN 527:ISBN 13 & errors 66:0-1234-5678-whatever 63:0-123-45678-whatever 1621:User_talk:Pascal666 1127:http://www.isbn.org 1108:Special:Booksources 967:. I needed to cite 54:Question about ISBN 33:wikipedia talk:ISBN 1669:I added a link to 1026:modulo and modulus 546:The article said: 1525:original research 1423:profess ignorance 1301: 1214: 1205:comment added by 876: 867:comment added by 857:ISBN verification 644: 617: 600:comment added by 574: 234:that ISBN number. 208: 152: 147: 129: 31:Content moved to 1779: 1703:ISBN Prefix list 1368: 1293: 1200: 862: 626: 616: 594: 556: 515:featured article 379: 373: 367: 364: 346: 340: 337:Group identifier 335: 312: 206: 203:I had also read: 150: 141: 127: 27:Numbering system 1787: 1786: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1705: 1667: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1608: 1606:with 'fact' tag 1575: 1385: 1366: 1289: 1221: 1215:5 April, 2007. 1176: 1141: 1123: 1076: 1021: 961: 916: 910: 859: 822: 813: 741:Jakob.scholbach 736: 627:—The preceding 623: 621:Pronounciation? 595: 557:—The preceding 544: 529: 511: 445: 412: 381: 377: 371: 342: 310: 220:128.250.247.158 160:128.250.247.158 56: 50: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1785: 1783: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1725: 1720: 1715: 1708: 1704: 1701: 1691:citing sources 1666: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1617: 1616: 1607: 1604:User:Pascal666 1600: 1599: 1598: 1574: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1485: 1474: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1416: 1415: 1401: 1400: 1384: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1333: 1332: 1288: 1285: 1273: 1272: 1220: 1217: 1197: 1175: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1140: 1137: 1122: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1075: 1072: 1057: 1055: 1054: 1020: 1017: 991: 990: 960: 957: 956: 955: 943: 914: 909: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 889: 888: 877:11 July, 2007 858: 855: 821: 818: 809: 806:Chris Capoccia 799: 798: 765: 764: 735: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 633:138.217.163.48 622: 619: 586: 585: 563:203.217.22.128 553: 552: 543: 540: 528: 525: 510: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 485: 484: 483: 482: 475: 474: 473: 472: 466: 465: 444: 441: 440: 439: 423:194.154.66.232 420: 419: 411: 408: 407: 406: 380: 369: 341: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 216: 209: 204: 201: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 156: 153: 148: 144:human readable 139: 136: 130: 125: 122: 115: 113: 112: 111: 110: 93: 92: 81: 80: 67: 64: 55: 52: 51: 47: 36: 28: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1784: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1759: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1744: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1733: 1729: 1728:And so on... 1726: 1724: 1719: 1714: 1709: 1702: 1700: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1653: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1605: 1597: 1594: 1589: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1580: 1572: 1568: 1565: 1560: 1555: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1544: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1514: 1511: 1506: 1502: 1499: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1453: 1450: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1396: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1331: 1328: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1299: 1298: 1297:You can help! 1286: 1284: 1281: 1279: 1270: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1259: 1254: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1246: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1235: 1228: 1226: 1218: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1207:137.99.17.121 1204: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1138: 1136: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1095: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1073: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1062: 1053: 1050: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1039: 1033: 1029: 1027: 1018: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 989: 986: 981: 980: 979: 978: 975: 970: 969:a publication 966: 958: 954: 951: 946: 945: 944: 941: 940: 937: 933: 930: 929: 926: 922: 919: 913: 907: 901: 898: 893: 892: 891: 890: 887: 884: 880: 879: 878: 874: 870: 869:218.82.228.37 866: 856: 854: 853: 850: 846: 841: 838: 835: 834: 830: 829: 825: 819: 817: 816: 812: 807: 803: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 780: 779: 778: 775: 771: 763: 760: 756: 752: 748: 747: 746: 745: 742: 733: 719: 716: 712: 708: 704: 699: 698: 697: 694: 689: 688: 686: 681: 680: 679: 676: 671: 670: 668: 664: 660: 656: 655: 654: 651: 647: 646: 645: 642: 638: 634: 630: 620: 618: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 593: 589: 584: 581: 577: 576: 575: 572: 568: 564: 560: 549: 548: 547: 541: 539: 538: 535: 526: 524: 523: 520: 516: 508: 502: 498: 494: 489: 488: 487: 486: 479: 478: 477: 476: 470: 469: 468: 467: 464: 461: 456: 455: 454: 453: 450: 442: 438: 435: 430: 429: 428: 427: 424: 417: 414: 413: 409: 405: 402: 398: 397: 396: 395: 392: 391: 387: 376: 370: 368: 361: 357: 353: 351: 322: 318: 314: 307: 303: 302: 301: 297: 293: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 232: 231: 229: 225: 221: 217: 214: 210: 205: 202: 199: 195: 194: 193: 192: 185: 181: 177: 172: 171: 169: 165: 161: 157: 154: 149: 145: 140: 137: 134: 131: 126: 123: 120: 119: 118: 117: 116: 109: 105: 102: 97: 96: 95: 94: 91: 88: 83: 82: 79: 75: 72: 68: 65: 62: 61: 60: 53: 46: 43: 42:for details. 41: 35: 34: 26: 19: 1756: 1730: 1727: 1721:2-07 : 1716:1-56592 : 1711:0-7645 : 1710: 1706: 1668: 1652:68.88.69.227 1618: 1609: 1576: 1541: 1493:cite sources 1477: 1426: 1422: 1386: 1334: 1309: 1295: 1290: 1282: 1274: 1266:4 September 1256: 1242:4 September 1232: 1229: 1224: 1222: 1196: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1142: 1124: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1077: 1060: 1056: 1034: 1030: 1025: 1022: 992: 962: 950:87.194.60.87 942: 934: 931: 923: 920: 917: 911: 908:Price Add-on 860: 844: 842: 839: 836: 831: 826: 823: 800: 766: 737: 709:("sequel"), 705:("scuzzy"), 650:Hassocks5489 624: 590: 587: 554: 545: 530: 512: 446: 421: 384: 382: 343: 305: 143: 132: 114: 57: 44: 37: 30: 1671:OttoBib.com 1573:ISBN Format 1364:item 11. -- 1201:—Preceding 1011:HairyWombat 974:HairyWombat 897:HairyWombat 863:—Preceding 849:ElectricRay 734:Hyphenation 715:Rossumcapek 675:Rossumcapek 661:added this 659:Rossumcapek 596:—Preceding 1766:9 January 1761:Farmbrough 1747:EdJohnston 1625:EdJohnston 1593:EdJohnston 1551:9 January 1546:Farmbrough 1510:EdJohnston 1449:EdJohnston 1395:EdJohnston 1347:Fabrivelas 1327:EdJohnston 1303:EdJohnston 1261:Farmbrough 1237:Farmbrough 1223:"In fact, 1160:EdJohnston 1131:EdJohnston 1112:EdJohnston 1094:Googlyelmo 1066:Googlyelmo 1061:especially 1049:EdJohnston 1038:Googlyelmo 985:EdJohnston 883:EdJohnston 759:EdJohnston 580:EdJohnston 519:EdJohnston 460:EdJohnston 434:EdJohnston 356:EdJohnston 198:EdJohnston 176:EdJohnston 87:EdJohnston 1579:Luke Elms 1427:published 534:Nil Einne 45:Broadly: 18:Talk:ISBN 1764:, 23:59 1687:Turabian 1549:, 23:55 1264:, 16:11 1240:, 15:47 1203:unsigned 865:unsigned 629:unsigned 610:contribs 598:unsigned 559:unsigned 493:ErkDemon 292:ErkDemon 1732:Bpg1968 1695:Dhaluza 1683:Chicago 1665:OttoBib 1529:WP:SELF 1482:WP:SELF 1406:WP:SELF 1362:WP:ELNO 1316:Dariyam 1247:(GMT). 1145:Ray3055 693:GUllman 685:hc5duke 667:hc5duke 542:Modulus 401:Circeus 101:Bubba73 71:Bubba73 1771:(GMT). 1564:Cleduc 1556:(GMT). 1533:Cleduc 1498:Cleduc 1431:Cleduc 1410:Cleduc 1369:rose64 1271:(GMT). 1003:Geneva 999:Geneva 788:CyHawk 375:nobots 313:rose64 218:—DIV ( 158:—DIV ( 146:form: 104:(talk) 74:(talk) 1681:, or 1646:+ 7*x 1642:+ 8*x 1638:+ 9*x 1253:WP:OR 1219:Maths 936:Gs1mo 925:Gs1mo 602:Dzurn 211:from 16:< 1769:2007 1758:Rich 1656:Mr z 1554:2007 1543:Rich 1373:talk 1351:talk 1269:2006 1258:Rich 1245:2006 1234:Rich 1211:talk 1164:talk 1149:talk 1089:What 1007:ICRC 873:talk 837:And 792:talk 774:Talk 770:Phil 703:SCSI 663:here 637:talk 606:talk 567:talk 497:talk 449:Njál 390:blis 317:talk 296:talk 224:talk 180:talk 164:talk 133:i.e. 38:See 1679:APA 1675:MLA 1489:POV 1367:Red 1085:why 1081:Who 997:in 845:You 711:Tcl 707:SQL 551:11) 386:nae 311:Red 306:may 1693:. 1677:, 1375:) 1353:) 1280:. 1225:no 1213:) 1166:) 1151:) 875:) 794:) 772:| 639:) 612:) 608:• 569:) 499:) 378:}} 372:{{ 319:) 298:) 230:) 226:) 182:) 170:) 166:) 106:, 76:, 1685:/ 1648:4 1644:3 1640:2 1636:1 1484:. 1371:( 1349:( 1300:) 1294:( 1209:( 1162:( 1147:( 871:( 811:C 808:⁄ 804:— 790:( 673:— 643:. 635:( 604:( 573:. 565:( 495:( 388:' 315:( 294:( 222:( 200:. 178:( 162:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index