[Asis-standards] ISO Systematic Review Votes

[Baden Hughes]

More of my earlier comments on the latest batch - including ISO 15924

Baden

My comments below:

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Mark Needleman <mneedlem at ufl.edu> wrote:
> 1) "Systematic Review of ISO 15924:2004, Information and documentation --
> Codes for the representation of names of scripts"

I recommend that we Confirm this standard. Its a particular area I
have expertise in and I'm not aware of any major issues with this
standard by major agencies and adopters/implementers.

> 2) "Systematic Review of ISO 15924:2004, Information and documentation --
> Codes for the representation of names of scripts"

Duplicate of #1 in this list ?

Maybe it should be "Systematic Review of ISO 5123: 1985 Documentation
- Headers of microfiche of monographs and serials" ???

In which case I would tend to go with Abstain (or maybe Withdraw) with
the comment that these really aren't being produced any more (the
standard is useful historically but unlikely to be so in the future)

> 3) "Systematic Review of ISO 215:1986, Documentation -- Presentation of
> contributions to periodicals and other serials"

I would tend to go with Abstain.

This isn't an area I'm specifically familiar with, my sense from
reading through is that its probably worth a review given given more
recent developments in publishing and bibliographic standards given
the age of the standard (so an alternative would be Revise with the
comment that there is still a requirement to present this information
in digital form but the expression may be different in that media, and
so there is a possibility of learning from practice and adopting some
new recommendations into the standard and thus giving it more
relevance to current usage).

> 4)  "Systematic Review of ISO 6357:1985, Documentation -- Spine titles on
> books and other publications"

I would tend to go with Confirm. Its an accepted norm amongst
publishers, and I can't see a rationale for changing it.

> 5) "Systematic Review of ISO 2384:1977, Documentation -- Presentation of
> translations"

I would tend to go with Revise, not least because a number of the
related standards referred to have been updated significantly since
and at a minimum these should be updated in this standard itself; plus
there are significant developments in the presentation of translations
in the electronic publishing age that were not specifically considered
in this original

Regards

Baden

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Mark Needleman <mneedlem at ufl.edu> wrote:

> Folks
>
> there are a bunch of ISO systematic review votes due at the end of August:
> ( these are all existing standards up for review)
>
> Systematic Review of ISO 5122:1979, Documentation -- Abstract sheets in
> serial publications
>
>  Systematic Review of ISO 7144:1986, Documentation -- Presentation of
> theses and similar documents
>
> Systematic Review of ISO 7275:1985, Documentation -- Presentation of title
> information of series
>
>  Systematic Review of ISO 18:1981, Documentation -- Contents list of
> periodicals
>
> Systematic Review of ISO 1086:1991, Information and documentation -- Title
> leaves of books
>
> ***Systematic Review of ISO 15924:2004, Information and documentation --
> Codes for the representation of names of scripts
>
> Systematic Review of ISO 5123:1984, Documentation -- Headers for
> microfiche of monographs and serials
>
>  Systematic Review of ISO 215:1986, Documentation -- Presentation of
> contributions to periodicals and other serials
>
>  Systematic Review of ISO 6357:1985, Documentation -- Spine titles on
> books and other publications
>
> Systematic Review of ISO 2384:1977, Documentation -- Presentation of
> translations
>
> Systematic Review of ISO 7220:1996, Information and documentation --
> Presentation of catalogues of standards
>
> I dont recall if i sent you copies of any of these - but if i didnt and
> anyone wants a copy of any of these let me know.
>
> My recommendation is that we abstain from all of them due to lack of
> expertise (although if anyone has any opinion on how we should vote let me
> know
>
> The one exception to this is ISO 15924 - Codes for the representation of
> names of scripts - which we may want to vote on. I have attached a copy of
> the current version of the standard to this message
>
> I need comments and opinions by 8/30
>
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asis-standards mailing list
> Asis-standards at asis.org
> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards
>
>
-------------- next part --------------