Standards Committee Activities 2020
Voted APPROVE on ISO/FDIS 3166-1, Codes for representation of names of countries – Part 1: Country code
Do you approve of the technical content of ISO/FDIS 3166-1?
This document specifies basic guidelines for the implementation and maintenance of country codes.
Voted APPROVE on ISO/FDIS 3166-2, Codes for the representation of names and countries – Part 2: Country subdivision
Do you approve of the technical content of ISO/FDIS 3166-2?
This document specifies basic guidelines for the implementation and maintenance of country subdivision codes.
Voted APPROVE on ISO/FDIS 3166-3, Codes for the representation of names of countries – Part 3: Code for formerly used names of countries
Do you approve of the technical content of ISO/FDIS 3166-3?
This document specifies basic guidelines for the implementation and maintenance of codes for formerly used names of countries.Comment
Voted APPROVE on ISO/DIS 24083, International archives statistics
Do you approve of the technical content of ISO/DIS 24083?
This International Standard specifies guidelines for the archives community on the collection and reporting of statistics for strategic planning, internal management of archives, and other statistical uses.Comment
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.
184.108.40.206 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 (220.127.116.11) on likelihood of generic titles (Correspondence) is a clarification which improves this.
Section 8.13 Research Datasets
18.104.22.168 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.Comment
Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 15706-1, International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN
Do you recommend that ISO 15706-1 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
This International Standard establishes and defines a voluntary standard numbering system for the unique and international identification of audiovisual works.
This is the 5-year review of this standard.Comment
The standards committee voted YES on New Work Item, Revise ANSI/NISO/LBC Z39.78-2000 (R2018) Library Binding standard to adjust minimum specifications for cover materials that are suitable for library collections and reliably available for purchase.
Should the work item to revise ANSI/NISO/LBC Z39.78-2000 (R2018) be approved?
This ballot is to approve a proposed new work item to revise ANSI/NISO/LBC Z39.78-2000 (R2018), Library Binding.
Rationale: A material specified in the standard is no longer available. Libraries and binders subject to the standard in their contracts are ceasing operations. Work item sponsors believe another material (indicated in previous versions of the standard) may be used with no loss of qualityComment
Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 10161-2, Interlibrary Loan Application Protocol – Protocol Conformance StatementQuestion: Systematic Review – ISO 10161-2, Interlibrary Loan Application Protocol – Protocol Conformance Statement Description:
his part of ISO 10161 defines the protocol implementation conformance statement (PICS) proforma for the ILL protocol as specified in ISO 10161-1, in compliance with the relevant requirements, and in accordance with the relevant guidance for a PICS proforma, given in ISO/IEC 9646-2.Comment
Voted Confirm on Systematic Review – ISO 10161-1, Interlibrary Loan Application Protocol SpecificationQuestion:
Do you recommend ISO 10161-1 be confirmed, revised, or withdrawn?Description: This part of ISO 10161 is one of a set of International Standards produced to facilitate the interconnection of computer systems Comment
Voted CONFIRM onSystematic Review – ISO 21127 – Reference ontologyQuestion:
Do you recommend ISO 21127 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?Description:
This International Standard establishes guidelines for the exchange of information between cultural heritage institutions.Comment
Voted APPROVE on ISO/DTS 23078-2, Specification of DRM Technology – User key-based protection
Do you approve the draft for publication?
This document defines a technical solution for encrypting resources in digital publications (especially EPUB in this version of the document) and for securely delivering decryption keys to Reading Systems, included in licenses tailored to specific users.Comment