Voted DISAPPROVE onSO/DIS 690, Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources
Do you approve the technical content of ISO/DIS 690?
This document provides guidelines for the preparation of bibliographic references. It also gives guidelines for the preparation of citations in works that are not themselves primarily bibliographical.
Members of the ASIST Standards Committee have reviewed with expertise in this area have reviewed the standard. While they have many positive statements about improvements that have been made (reflected in the comments) there are enough negative things they still found that we believe justifies a vote of DISAPPROVE
Much more detailed and reorganized compared with working draft. Many media-specific improvements, and efforts to reconcile standard with FRBR manifestation, expression, and work.
More attention to distinguishing terms e.g. for corporate names, e.g. musical group, spacecraft.
188.8.131.52 Roles: The examples are a little vague here (film of musical performances).
EXAMPLE 9 MOZART, Wolfgang Amadeus. The Magic Flute. [DVD]. TAYMOR, Julie (director). Metropolitan
Opera. LEVINE, James (conductor). Sony Classical, 2011.
EXAMPLE 10 METALLICA. Orgullo, Pasión, y Gloria: Tres Noches en la Ciudad de México. [DVD]. ISHAM, Wayne
(director). Universal Records, 2009.
7.11.1 We Like the Music example comment on manifestation and work identifier numbers in one reference, for use in collation or discrimination. (ISWC , ISRC )
7.3.4 Long title – ellipsis problem w generic titles is better handled, or at least acknowledged.
8.4.5 Monograph series, Example 8. Citation of 2d version reference should be cleaned up a little. “peer]” cf. Preprint in previous example..
Maps – Details for description of maps notably enhanced.
• Title inclusion of Opus requirements.
8.9.4 – roles of subsidiary creators needed for specificity This is an improvement though without specific examples of citations.
8.9.6 – As a component part [aggregation]
Somewhere in this section the document might well reference the use of manifestation and work identifiers in the 2d paragraph of 7.11.1 (International Standard Identifiers). This is a good illustration of the finding problems of components of aggregate works.
The last paragraph, starting “In sheet music, if a particular bar is required.” — ?? Doesn’t this belong in section 8.9.5 Printed music ?? Don’t quite see its pertinence to 8.9.6.
Section 8.12 Archival materials. Note (184.108.40.206) on likelihood of generic titles (Correspondence) is a clarification which improves this.
Section 8.13 Research Datasets
220.127.116.11 Roles are described usefully. Not in a position to comment on other parts of this section.
Section 8.14 Web sites – have not reviewed in any depth.
Section 8.15 Social media and services — can’t comment on this section.
Section 8.16 Unpublished information resources
8.16.8 Preprint etc. If. peer review iscompleted ,why wouldn’t this be “Manuscript accepted for publication” be used, and “Manuscript submitted for publication” indicate the pre-peer-review submitted paper? The section after all emphasizes that the preprint and published may be quite different.
it used the definitions of FRBR, added explanation and notes for Work and Expression. It has a line “[SOURCE: ISO 5127:2017, 3.2.1.08, modified – added reference to FRBR.]”
If we get into the details, we need to indicate that FRBR family models are out of date and replaced by the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM), approved in 2017. ( World-wide review conducted in early 2016. a final draft was accepted at the FRBR Review Group level by the end of 2016. The IFLA Professional Committee formally adopted it 2017-08-18). Even though these two entities are kept, the references should be referring to LRM
Appendix A. (Informative) Citation systems. In the Section of A.2 “Name and date system (Harvard system)”, it provides the Harvard style only, as a “name and date system”. It mentioned “commonly referred to as the Harvard system, the year element is inserted after the creator. This rule differs from the preferred order of elements described in Clause 8.” This statement is ok, but the system example is not complete, as there are other citation format (e.g., Chicago B) also has ‘author-date’ style [www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/…
The issue is that the only examples given for the ‘author-date’ system is this one, which only includes ‘Last name, plus First name’s initial’, not a full name. Even though it is true that Harvard system is this way, the ISO standard should provide at least another system that include the full names in the citations (see link to the Chicago Manual of Style link above).
In summary, the existing citation system that to be included in an ISO standard, even as an appendix, it not inclusive and could be misleading.
The problem of this kind ‘Last name, plus First name’s initial’ has been a big problem in the information age. If you search a popular last name and an initial, in Google Scholar or any of the academic databases, you will get so much fake information, not to mention the citation statistics. Even though this is not what the ISO standard is dealing with, only including this style and all examples like that (on page 106, A.2.3.2 section), will be misleading.