[Asis-standards] Upcoming votes

[ZENG, MARCIA]

For the museum one, I think this is a good step. I assume they will
emphasize on the documentation and archiving, or include these.
Marcia 



On 12/16/15, 9:56 AM, "Asis-standards on behalf of Mark Needleman"
<asis-standards-bounces at asis.org on behalf of needleman_mark at yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Folks
>in case you don't have anything to do over the holidays there are a few
>votes coming up in Early January:
>Relevant documents attached to this note
>
>
>1) New Work Item Proposal ISO 18461 key indicators for museums
>
>This is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard Key
>indicators for museums² .
>
>An International Standard ³Key indicators for museums² is planned as
>follow-up to ISO 18461"Information and documentation - International
>museum statistics". It aims at offering a broad selection of tested
>indicators for evaluating the performance of museums of all types and
>subjects.
>
>The measures described in the Standard should be adequate for use in the
>internal management, for reporting to stakeholders and, with care, for
>comparison between museums of similar tasks and structure.
>
>If the US votes to approve this as a new project, we are expected to name
>at least one expert who will work on this standard's development. If you
>would like to nominate someone, please include the name and contact
>information in your comments, we are now also required to provide
>particular information when adding Experts to working groups: The
>Expert¹s full name and e-mail address, a salutation (Dr., Ms., etc.) as
>well as one of the following Stakeholder Categories:
>
>Industry and Commerce
>Government
>Consumers
>Labour
>Academic and Research Bodies
>Standards Application
>Non-governmental Organization (NGO)
>
>Please obtain that person's agreement in advance to work on this project.
>
>We are also required to provide a justification statement for why we
>think this is or is not a worthwhile/useful project (depending on whether
>we vote yes or no). Please provide such a statement in the comments for
>your Affirmative or Negative vote. Consider whether you think this
>standard will be used in the U.S.
>
>Your voting options are:
>
>YES - approve this as a new project (comments required on justification
>statement; nominate expert(s) if you have one; comments on the working
>draft are encouraged but optional)
>
>NO - do not approve this as a new project (comments required on why)
>
>ABSTAIN from voting (comments optional)
>
>Comments Due: 1/5/2016 ( i believe i sent this one out already) - If tou
>want to or know someone who would make a good member of this committee
>let me know - assuming the work item is approved
>
>
>2) ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (R2009) Information Interchange Format
>
>This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard
>ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (R2009) Information Interchange Format. This
>standard was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2009. A copy of the Z39.2
>standard is available for download from the ballot webpage or the link in
>the announcement email.
>
>In accordance with NISO procedures, all review ballots are accompanied by
>a recommendation from the responsible leadership committee. NISO's
>Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommends a vote to
>REAFFIRM the standard.
>
>As a member of the voting pool, you are required to vote on this ballot
>(one vote per organization). Please cast your ballot with one of the
>following voting options:
>
>YES - Approve the Reaffirmation of the standard (comments optional)
>
>NO - Do not approve the Reaffirmation of the standard (comments required)
>
>Notes:
>As described in its Foreword, ANSI/NISO Z39.2 is a standard critical to
>the implementation of automation for storing, transferring, and
>retrieving bibliographic information, but its original purpose was to
>define a format for the interchange of bibliographic records on magnetic
>tape. It now supports many types of data and may be used by different
>types of media but remains very specific in its application.
>
>After full discussion on this topic, NISO's Content and Collection
>Management Topic Committee (CCM) believes that developments in the fields
>of linked data and related areas will warrant future standardization in
>information interchange to define similar and related functions to those
>described in Z39.2, but that current efforts are not yet sufficient to
>require a revision (or re-creation).
>
>In addition, CCM believes that future standardization of activities in
>this area will require a "ground up" effort rather than the application
>of incremental changes to the Z39.2 standard, whose very specific
>definitions and format it believes could not be modified very well to fit
>the practical application of data sharing required by more modern
>libraries and information centers.
>
>ISO 2709:2008 covers much of the same area of Z39.2. Reaffirmation would
>allow Z39.2 to remain available for any updates should ISO 2709 undergo
>any major revision.
>Comments Due 1/6/2016 ( I assume no one has an objection to a YES vote on
>this)
>
> 3) New Work Item Proposal ISO /TR 28118 Quality assessment for national
>libraries
>
>This is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard
>"Quality assessment for national libraries².
>
>The proposed Technical Report ³Quality assessment for national libraries²
>shall cover two purposes:
>- to revise and enlarge the collection of performance indicators in
>ISO/TR 28118 (2009)
>³Performance indicators for national libraries²,
>- to define and describe methods for assessing and measuring the impact
>of national libraries and their services.
>
>If the US votes to approve this as a new project, we are expected to name
>at least one expert who will work on this standard's development. If you
>would like to nominate someone, please include the name and contact
>information in your comments, we are now also required to provide
>particular information when adding Experts to working groups: The
>Expert¹s full name and e-mail address, a salutation (Dr., Ms., etc.) as
>well as one of the following Stakeholder Categories:
>
>Industry and Commerce
>Government
>Consumers
>Labour
>Academic and Research Bodies
>Standards Application
>Non-governmental Organization (NGO)
>
>Please obtain that person's agreement in advance to work on this project.
>
>We are also required to provide a justification statement for why we
>think this is or is not a worthwhile/useful project (depending on whether
>we vote yes or no). Please provide such a statement in the comments for
>your Affirmative or Negative vote. Consider whether you think this
>standard will be used in the U.S.
>
>Your voting options are:
>
>YES - approve this as a new project (comments required on justification
>statement; nominate expert(s) if you have one; comments on the working
>draft are encouraged but optional)
>
>NO - do not approve this as a new project (comments required on why)
>
>ABSTAIN from voting (comments optional)
>
>Comments Due 1/7/2016 - if you want to be on the committee or know
>someone who would make a good member let me know (assuming the work item
>is approved)
>
>4) Approval of Proposed New Work Item: Recommended Practice for Tracking
>Link Origins in a Networked Information Environment
>
>This ballot is to approve a proposed new work item on the development of
>a Recommended Practice for Tracking Link Origins in a Networked
>Information Environment
>
>Members have thirty (30) days to vote on the work item. Your vote options
>are: Yes (approve the project), No (do not approve the project), or
>Abstain (from voting). Comments are required for No votes. If you would
>like to nominate someone to participate on the Working Group (if the
>project is approved), please provide a name and contact information in
>your comments. NISO Working Group participation is not limited to NISO
>members.
>
>Libraries strive to improve the ways in which users access their
>collections. Gaining a definitive understanding of where a user began his
>or her library experience/search before ultimately arriving at the
>content licensed by a library is an important factor in determining the
>value of a platform, how to allocate resources, etc. Publishers,
>recognizing that users have a number of options for discovering content,
>supply metadata to various discovery and abstracting and indexing vendors
>in the hopes of increasing the discoverability and use of the content
>they create and to which their customers subscribe. Publishers who wish
>to measure the success of their metadata programs will often turn to web
>log analysis to track where their users are coming from. Where links pass
>through link resolver channels, thus ³losing² the data relative to search
>origin. Critical data for publishers and libraries are skewed because the
>origin of the users request to retrieve the document appears to come from
>the provider of the link resolver.
>
>This group will create a NISO Recommended Practice outlining the
>recommended approach to passing and using link origin information, a
>promotion and education plan, and one or more proof-of-concept services
>that can exchange the link origin information using the proposed approach.
>
>The proposal was approved by the Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee on
>September 21, 2015, and is now being sent to the NISO voting membership
>for agreement to begin a new work project and to elicit expressions of
>interest in participating in the work.
>
>In order for this item to be approved so that a Working Group can be
>formed to pursue this work, a minimum of 10% of NISO's Voting Members
>must express interest in this new work item.
>
>Comments Due 1/8/2016 - if you want to be on the committee or know
>someone who would make a good member let me know (assuming the work item
>is approved) - Personal opinion id Im not sure this is needed but we can
>always vote NO on whatever they come up with
>