From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Sat Jan 2 13:48:02 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 13:48:02 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Reminder Message-ID: <459F1F14-2548-46BD-AAFD-68DEE51F3629@yahoo.com> just a friendly reminder for the new year - Timothy Dickey has come up with a great idea for an article for the Bulletin issue on standards - we still need 4-5 more so anyone who has an idea (and more importantly can get someone to write an article or feels like they could write one) - all ideas welcome mark From mzeng at kent.edu Sat Jan 2 18:47:02 2016 From: mzeng at kent.edu (ZENG, MARCIA) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 23:47:02 +0000 Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 Message-ID: Mark, Z30.19 is an important standard. I agree with the vote: YES - Approve the Revision of the standard As a member of the Z39.19 and ISO 25964, I felt strongly that the revision is needed. Here are a few points in addition to the previous ?notes? came with your message. Margie may have a lot more to add! 1. The ISO 25964 ?Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies" [1] need to be referred and coordinated. 2. Make a complete new section about using W3X?s ?SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System" with the eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)[2] which was released as W3C recommendations in 2009. There is already an alignment of SKOS with ISO25964. 3. There are issues of inappropriate guidelines in the 2005 version (see notes below). They should be modified according to the ISO standard and the current best practices in the digital age. 4. One of the fundamental changes in the newer ISO standard is the notion to center the ?concepts? rather than ?terms? in thesauri.[3] As the Internet of Things are embraced by the world, this ?thing?- (aka ?resource?, ?entity?, ?res?)-centered vocabulary control approach requires the NISO standard catch up and build on the new notion, like what ISO 25964 did. My two cents? Marcia Zeng [1] http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ [3] http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ Notes: (from previous email you sent) The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ? Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > >5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, >and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies > >This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard >ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, >and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard was >last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 >REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. > >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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) > >NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) > >ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting >pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) > >Notes: >The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as >replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource >Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to >ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the >definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and >Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition of >document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to current >use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which could be >argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections >is confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet >Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to >common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 >(Non-Alphabetic Characters ? Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of >the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many >would argue that they should be avoided completely by adding the >parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but without parentheses by >using natural language order. The call to use adjectives and adverbs to >limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are >further examples of guidance which is contrary to standard best practices >by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part >of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous >as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and >revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical >relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > >The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these >concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a recommendation >to review and revise Z39.19. > >Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who are >familiar with this subject can provide comments and a recommendation for >a vote > From thornbug at oclc.org Sun Jan 3 12:41:39 2016 From: thornbug at oclc.org (Thornburg,Gail) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:41:39 +0000 Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Concepts rather than terms, that is important -----Original Message----- From: Asis-standards [mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of ZENG, MARCIA Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:47 PM To: Mark Needleman; ASIST Standards Committee Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 Mark, Z30.19 is an important standard. I agree with the vote: YES - Approve the Revision of the standard As a member of the Z39.19 and ISO 25964, I felt strongly that the revision is needed. Here are a few points in addition to the previous ?notes? came with your message. Margie may have a lot more to add! 1. The ISO 25964 ?Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies" [1] need to be referred and coordinated. 2. Make a complete new section about using W3X?s ?SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System" with the eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)[2] which was released as W3C recommendations in 2009. There is already an alignment of SKOS with ISO25964. 3. There are issues of inappropriate guidelines in the 2005 version (see notes below). They should be modified according to the ISO standard and the current best practices in the digital age. 4. One of the fundamental changes in the newer ISO standard is the notion to center the ?concepts? rather than ?terms? in thesauri.[3] As the Internet of Things are embraced by the world, this ?thing?- (aka ?resource?, ?entity?, ?res?)-centered vocabulary control approach requires the NISO standard catch up and build on the new notion, like what ISO 25964 did. My two cents? Marcia Zeng [1] http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ [3] http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ Notes: (from previous email you sent) The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ? Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > >5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, >Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies > >This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard >ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, >and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard >was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 >REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. > >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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) > >NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) > >ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting >pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) > >Notes: >The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such >as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource >Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to >ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the >definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and >Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition >of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to >current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which >could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in >some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section >5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is >contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and >6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ? Parentheses) which call for the >avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when >disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided >completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, >but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to >use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms >(Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which >is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of >adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). >Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing >terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision >could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > >The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these >concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a >recommendation to review and revise Z39.19. > >Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who >are familiar with this subject can provide comments and a >recommendation for a vote > _______________________________________________ Asis-standards mailing list Asis-standards at asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards From mhlava at accessinn.com Sun Jan 3 13:18:00 2016 From: mhlava at accessinn.com (margie_hlava) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:18:00 -0700 Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <056A65D4-C29B-483A-8BD7-2C4DBA091D81@accessinn.com> I agree. I wrote up a 31 page document how about the standard and what I thought needed to be improved and sent it to the CCM so that we could get this moving. In addition to the points already made I think the use of Taxonomies and other KOS in websites and search is important to consider. Marjorie Hlava Mhlava at accessinn.com Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Thornburg,Gail wrote: > > Concepts rather than terms, that is important > > -----Original Message----- > From: Asis-standards [mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of ZENG, MARCIA > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:47 PM > To: Mark Needleman; ASIST Standards Committee > Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 > > Mark, > Z30.19 is an important standard. > I agree with the vote: > YES - Approve the Revision of the standard > > As a member of the Z39.19 and ISO 25964, I felt strongly that the revision is needed. Here are a few points in addition to the previous ?notes? came with your message. Margie may have a lot more to add! > > 1. The ISO 25964 ?Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies" > [1] need to be referred and coordinated. > 2. Make a complete new section about using W3X?s ?SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System" with the eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)[2] which was released as W3C recommendations in 2009. There is already an alignment of SKOS with ISO25964. > 3. There are issues of inappropriate guidelines in the 2005 version (see notes below). They should be modified according to the ISO standard and the current best practices in the digital age. > 4. One of the fundamental changes in the newer ISO standard is the notion to center the ?concepts? rather than ?terms? in thesauri.[3] As the Internet of Things are embraced by the world, this ?thing?- (aka ?resource?, ?entity?, ?res?)-centered vocabulary control approach requires the NISO standard catch up and build on the new notion, like what ISO > 25964 did. > > My two cents? > Marcia Zeng > > [1] http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ > [3] http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ > > Notes: (from previous email you sent) > The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ? > Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but without parentheses by using natural language order. > The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > > > > > >> >> 5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, >> Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies >> >> This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard >> ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, >> and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard >> was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 >> REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. >> >> 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) >> >> NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) >> >> ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting >> pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) >> >> Notes: >> The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such >> as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource >> Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to >> ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the >> definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and >> Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition >> of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to >> current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which >> could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in >> some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section >> 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is >> contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and >> 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters Parentheses) which call for the >> avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when >> disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided >> completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, >> but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to >> use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms >> (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which >> is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of >> adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). >> Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing >> terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision >> could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. >> >> The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these >> concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a >> recommendation to review and revise Z39.19. >> >> Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who >> are familiar with this subject can provide comments and a >> recommendation for a vote > > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > Asis-standards at asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > Asis-standards at asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Sun Jan 3 13:21:23 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (needleman_mark at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 18:21:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 In-Reply-To: <056A65D4-C29B-483A-8BD7-2C4DBA091D81@accessinn.com> References: <056A65D4-C29B-483A-8BD7-2C4DBA091D81@accessinn.com> Message-ID: Would you like that power also submitted as part of our vote? Mark Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone Albert Einstein "There are two things that are limitless, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe" On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM -0800, "margie_hlava" wrote: I agree. I wrote up a 31 page document how about the standard and what I thought needed to be improved and sent it to the CCM so that we could get this moving. In addition to the points already made I think the use of Taxonomies and other KOS in websites and search is important to consider. Marjorie Hlava Mhlava at accessinn.com Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Thornburg,Gail wrote: > > Concepts rather than terms, that is important > > -----Original Message----- > From: Asis-standards [mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of ZENG, MARCIA > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:47 PM > To: Mark Needleman; ASIST Standards Committee > Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 > > Mark, > Z30.19 is an important standard. > I agree with the vote: > YES - Approve the Revision of the standard > > As a member of the Z39.19 and ISO 25964, I felt strongly that the revision is needed. Here are a few points in addition to the previous ?notes? came with your message. Margie may have a lot more to add! > > 1. The ISO 25964 ?Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies" > [1] need to be referred and coordinated. > 2. Make a complete new section about using W3X?s ?SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System" with the eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)[2] which was released as W3C recommendations in 2009. There is already an alignment of SKOS with ISO25964. > 3. There are issues of inappropriate guidelines in the 2005 version (see notes below). They should be modified according to the ISO standard and the current best practices in the digital age. > 4. One of the fundamental changes in the newer ISO standard is the notion to center the ?concepts? rather than ?terms? in thesauri.[3] As the Internet of Things are embraced by the world, this ?thing?- (aka ?resource?, ?entity?, ?res?)-centered vocabulary control approach requires the NISO standard catch up and build on the new notion, like what ISO > 25964 did. > > My two cents? > Marcia Zeng > > [1] http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ > [3] http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ > > Notes: (from previous email you sent) > The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ? > Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but without parentheses by using natural language order. > The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > > > > > >> >> 5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, >> Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies >> >> This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard >> ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, >> and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard >> was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 >> REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. >> >> 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) >> >> NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) >> >> ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting >> pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) >> >> Notes: >> The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such >> as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource >> Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to >> ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the >> definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and >> Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition >> of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to >> current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which >> could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in >> some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section >> 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is >> contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and >> 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters Parentheses) which call for the >> avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when >> disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided >> completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, >> but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to >> use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms >> (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which >> is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of >> adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). >> Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing >> terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision >> could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. >> >> The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these >> concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a >> recommendation to review and revise Z39.19. >> >> Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who >> are familiar with this subject can provide comments and a >> recommendation for a vote > > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > Asis-standards at asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > Asis-standards at asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > -------------- next part -------------- Would you like that power also submitted as part of our vote? Mark Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone Albert Einstein "There are two things that are limitless, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe" On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM -0800, "margie_hlava" <[1]mhlava at accessinn.com> wrote: I agree. I wrote up a 31 page document how about the standard and what I though t needed to be improved and sent it to the CCM so that we could get this moving . In addition to the points already made I think the use of Taxonomies and othe r KOS in websites and search is important to consider. Marjorie Hlava Mhlava at accessinn.com Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Thornburg,Gail wrote: > > Concepts rather than terms, that is important > > -----Original Message----- > From: Asis-standards [mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of ZE NG, MARCIA > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:47 PM > To: Mark Needleman; ASIST Standards Committee > Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 > > Mark, > Z30.19 is an important standard. > I agree with the vote: > YES - Approve the Revision of the standard > > As a member of the Z39.19 and ISO 25964, I felt strongly that the revision is needed. Here are a few points in addition to the previous ??notes?? came with your message. Margie may have a lot more to add! > > 1. The ISO 25964 ??Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies" > [1] need to be referred and coordinated. > 2. Make a complete new section about using W3X??s ??SKOS Simple Knowledge Org anization System" with the eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)[2] which was released as W3C recommendations in 2009. There is already an alignment of SKOS with ISO 25964. > 3. There are issues of inappropriate guidelines in the 2005 version (see note s below). They should be modified according to the ISO standard and the current best practices in the digital age. > 4. One of the fundamental changes in the newer ISO standard is the notion to center the ??concepts?? rather than ??terms?? in thesauri.[3] As the Internet o f Things are embraced by the world, this ??thing??- (aka ??resource??, ??entity ??, ??res??)-centered vocabulary control approach requires the NISO standard ca tch up and build on the new notion, like what ISO > 25964 did. > > My two cents? > Marcia Zeng > > [1] http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ > [3] http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ > > Notes: (from previous email you sent) > The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as rep lacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description and Acc ess) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the current ve rsions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in Section 4 (Defin itions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such a s the definition of document which is currently too broad and does not correspo nd to current use. There are also, terms such as ??generic structure?? which co uld be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). I n some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ?- > Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoide d completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but wi thout parentheses by using natural language order. > The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is cont rary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are i nherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Addition al review and revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hier archical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > > > > > >> >> 5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, >> Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies >> >> This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard >> ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, >> and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard >> was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 >> REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. >> >> 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) >> >> NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) >> >> ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting >> pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) >> >> Notes: >> The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such >> as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource >> Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to >> ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the >> definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and >> Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition >> of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to >> current use. There are also, terms such as ??generic structure?? which >> could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in >> some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section >> 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is >> contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and >> 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters Parentheses) which call for the >> avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when >> disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided >> completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, >> but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to >> use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms >> (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which >> is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of >> adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). >> Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing >> terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision >> could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationshi ps, display types and vocabulary management systems. >> >> The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these >> concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a >> recommendation to review and revise Z39.19. >> >> Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who >> are familiar with this subject can provide comments and a >> recommendation for a vote > > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > Asis-standards at asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > Asis-standards at asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > References 1. mailto:mhlava at accessinn.com From mhlava at accessinn.com Sun Jan 3 21:08:18 2016 From: mhlava at accessinn.com (margie_hlava) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:08:18 -0700 Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 In-Reply-To: References: <056A65D4-C29B-483A-8BD7-2C4DBA091D81@accessinn.com> Message-ID: <840E5E39-ACA9-4219-9B6B-8118C688DC5A@accessinn.com> Good idea Marjorie Hlava Mhlava at accessinn.com Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 3, 2016, at 11:21 AM, needleman_mark at yahoo.com wrote: > > Would you like that power also submitted as part of our vote? > > Mark > > Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone > > Albert Einstein "There are two things that are limitless, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe" > > > > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM -0800, "margie_hlava" wrote: > >> I agree. I wrote up a 31 page document how about the standard and what I thought needed to be improved and sent it to the CCM so that we could get this moving. In addition to the points already made I think the use of Taxonomies and other KOS in websites and search is important to consider. >> >> Marjorie Hlava >> Mhlava at accessinn.com >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Thornburg,Gail wrote: >> > >> > Concepts rather than terms, that is important >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Asis-standards [mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of ZENG, MARCIA >> > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:47 PM >> > To: Mark Needleman; ASIST Standards Committee >> > Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 >> > >> > Mark, >> > Z30.19 is an important standard. >> > I agree with the vote: >> > YES - Approve the Revision of the standard >> > >> > As a member of the Z39.19 and ISO 25964, I felt strongly that the revision is needed. Here are a few points in addition to the previous ?notes? came with your message. Margie may have a lot more to add! >> > >> > 1. The ISO 25964 ?Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies" >> > [1] need to be referred and coordinated. >> > 2. Make a complete new section about using W3X?s ?SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System" with the eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)[2] which was released as W3C recommendations in 2009. There is already an alignment of SKOS with ISO25964. >> > 3. There are issues of inappropriate guidelines in the 2005 version (see notes below). They should be modified according to the ISO standard and the current best practices in the digital age. >> > 4. One of the fundamental changes in the newer ISO standard is the notion to center the ?concepts? rather than ?terms? in thesauri.[3] As the Internet of Things are embraced by the world, this ?thing?- (aka ?resource?, ?entity?, ?res?)-centered vocabulary control approach requires the NISO standard catch up and build on the new notion, like what ISO >> > 25964 did. >> > >> > My two cents? >> > Marcia Zeng >> > >> > [1] http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ >> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ >> > [3] http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ >> > >> > Notes: (from previous email you sent) >> > The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ? >> > Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but without parentheses by using natural language order. >> > The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> 5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, >> >> Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies >> >> >> >> This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard >> >> ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, >> >> and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard >> >> was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 >> >> REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. >> >> >> >> 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) >> >> >> >> NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) >> >> >> >> ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting >> >> pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) >> >> >> >> Notes: >> >> The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such >> >> as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource >> >> Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to >> >> ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the >> >> definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and >> >> Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition >> >> of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to >> >> current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which >> >> could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in >> >> some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section >> >> 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is >> >> contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and >> >> 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters Parentheses) which call for the >> >> avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when >> >> disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided >> >> completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, >> >> but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to >> >> use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms >> >> (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which >> >> is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of >> >> adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). >> >> Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing >> >> terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision >> >> could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. >> >> >> >> The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these >> >> concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a >> >> recommendation to review and revise Z39.19. >> >> >> >> Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who >> >> are familiar with this subject can provide comments and a >> >> recommendation for a vote >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Asis-standards mailing list >> > Asis-standards at asis.org >> > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Asis-standards mailing list >> > Asis-standards at asis.org >> > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards >> > -------------- next part -------------- Good idea Marjorie Hlava [1]Mhlava at accessinn.com Sent from my iPhone On Jan 3, 2016, at 11:21 AM, [2]needleman_mark at yahoo.com wrote: Would you like that power also submitted as part of our vote? Mark Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone Albert Einstein "There are two things that are limitless, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe" On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM -0800, "margie_hlava" <[3]mhlava at accessinn.com> wrote: I agree. I wrote up a 31 page document how about the standard and what I though t needed to be improved and sent it to the CCM so that we could get this moving . In addition to the points already made I think the use of Taxonomies and othe r KOS in websites and search is important to consider. Marjorie Hlava [4]Mhlava at accessinn.com Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Thornburg,Gail wrote: > > Concepts rather than terms, that is important > > -----Original Message----- > From: Asis-standards [[5]mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of ZENG, MARCIA > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:47 PM > To: Mark Needleman; ASIST Standards Committee > Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 > > Mark, > Z30.19 is an important standard. > I agree with the vote: > YES - Approve the Revision of the standard > > As a member of the Z39.19 and ISO 25964, I felt strongly that the revision is needed. Here are a few points in addition to the previous ?notes? came with yo ur message. Margie may have a lot more to add! > > 1. The ISO 25964 ?Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies" > [1] need to be referred and coordinated. > 2. Make a complete new section about using W3X?s ?SKOS Simple Knowledge Organ ization System" with the eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)[2] which was released a s W3C recommendations in 2009. There is already an alignment of SKOS with ISO25 964. > 3. There are issues of inappropriate guidelines in the 2005 version (see note s below). They should be modified according to the ISO standard and the current best practices in the digital age. > 4. One of the fundamental changes in the newer ISO standard is the notion to center the ?concepts? rather than ?terms? in thesauri.[3] As the Internet of Th ings are embraced by the world, this ?thing?- (aka ?resource?, ?entity?, ?res?) -centered vocabulary control approach requires the NISO standard catch up and b uild on the new notion, like what ISO > 25964 did. > > My two cents? > Marcia Zeng > > [1] [6]http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ > [2] [7]http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ > [3] [8]http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ > > Notes: (from previous email you sent) > The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as rep lacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description and Acc ess) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the current ve rsions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in Section 4 (Defin itions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such a s the definition of document which is currently too broad and does not correspo nd to current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which coul d be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections i s confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters > Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoide d completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but wi thout parentheses by using natural language order. > The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is cont rary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are i nherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Addition al review and revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hier archical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > > > > > >> >> 5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, >> Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies >> >> This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard >> ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, >> and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard >> was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 >> REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. >> >> 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) >> >> NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) >> >> ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting >> pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) >> >> Notes: >> The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such >> as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource >> Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to >> ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the >> definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and >> Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition >> of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to >> current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which >> could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in >> some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section >> 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is >> contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and >> 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters Parentheses) which call for the >> avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when >> disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided >> completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, >> but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to >> use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms >> (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which >> is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of >> adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). >> Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing >> terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision >> could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationshi ps, display types and vocabulary management systems. >> >> The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these >> concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a >> recommendation to review and revise Z39.19. >> >> Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who >> are familiar with this subject can provide comments and a >> recommendation for a vote > > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > [9]Asis-standards at asis.org > [10]http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > [11]Asis-standards at asis.org > [12]http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > References 1. mailto:Mhlava at accessinn.com 2. mailto:needleman_mark at yahoo.com 3. mailto:mhlava at accessinn.com 4. mailto:Mhlava at accessinn.com 5. mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org 6. http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ 7. http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ 8. http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ 9. mailto:Asis-standards at asis.org 10. http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards 11. mailto:Asis-standards at asis.org 12. http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards From ghodge at iiaweb.com Mon Jan 4 08:26:00 2016 From: ghodge at iiaweb.com (Gail Hodge) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:26:00 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 In-Reply-To: <056A65D4-C29B-483A-8BD7-2C4DBA091D81@accessinn.com> References: <056A65D4-C29B-483A-8BD7-2C4DBA091D81@accessinn.com> Message-ID: Agree with all that has been said so far. This is an important standard that needs attention. Happy New Year to all! Gail On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 1:18 PM, margie_hlava wrote: > I agree. I wrote up a 31 page document how about the standard and what I > thought needed to be improved and sent it to the CCM so that we could get > this moving. In addition to the points already made I think the use of > Taxonomies and other KOS in websites and search is important to consider. > > Marjorie Hlava > Mhlava at accessinn.com > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Thornburg,Gail wrote: > > > > Concepts rather than terms, that is important > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Asis-standards [mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf > Of ZENG, MARCIA > > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:47 PM > > To: Mark Needleman; ASIST Standards Committee > > Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 > > > > Mark, > > Z30.19 is an important standard. > > I agree with the vote: > > YES - Approve the Revision of the standard > > > > As a member of the Z39.19 and ISO 25964, I felt strongly that the > revision is needed. Here are a few points in addition to the previous > ?notes? came with your message. Margie may have a lot more to add! > > > > 1. The ISO 25964 ?Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies" > > [1] need to be referred and coordinated. > > 2. Make a complete new section about using W3X?s ?SKOS Simple Knowledge > Organization System" with the eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)[2] which was > released as W3C recommendations in 2009. There is already an alignment of > SKOS with ISO25964. > > 3. There are issues of inappropriate guidelines in the 2005 version (see > notes below). They should be modified according to the ISO standard and the > current best practices in the digital age. > > 4. One of the fundamental changes in the newer ISO standard is the > notion to center the ?concepts? rather than ?terms? in thesauri.[3] As the > Internet of Things are embraced by the world, this ?thing?- (aka > ?resource?, ?entity?, ?res?)-centered vocabulary control approach requires > the NISO standard catch up and build on the new notion, like what ISO > > 25964 did. > > > > My two cents? > > Marcia Zeng > > > > [1] http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ > > [3] http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ > > > > Notes: (from previous email you sent) > > The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such > as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource > Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure > they are the current versions. There are also a number of the definitions > of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could > be enhanced or improved, such as the definition of document which is > currently too broad and does not correspond to current use. There are also, > terms such as ?generic structure? which could be argued to be an obsolete > taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be > clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the > guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections > 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ? > > Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses > whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they > should be avoided completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of > the descriptor, but without parentheses by using natural language order. > > The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound > terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance > which is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of > adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked > adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This > section should be removed. Additional review and revision could and should > be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display > types and vocabulary management systems. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> 5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, > >> Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies > >> > >> This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard > >> ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, > >> and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard > >> was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 > >> REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. > >> > >> 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) > >> > >> NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) > >> > >> ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting > >> pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) > >> > >> Notes: > >> The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such > >> as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource > >> Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to > >> ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the > >> definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and > >> Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition > >> of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to > >> current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which > >> could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in > >> some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section > >> 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is > >> contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and > >> 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters Parentheses) which call for the > >> avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when > >> disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided > >> completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, > >> but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to > >> use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms > >> (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which > >> is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of > >> adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). > >> Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing > >> terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision > >> could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical > relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > >> > >> The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these > >> concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a > >> recommendation to review and revise Z39.19. > >> > >> Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who > >> are familiar with this subject can provide comments and a > >> recommendation for a vote > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asis-standards mailing list > > Asis-standards at asis.org > > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asis-standards mailing list > > Asis-standards at asis.org > > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > Asis-standards at asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > -- Gail Hodge Information International Associates, Inc. Email: ghodge at iiaweb.com Phone: 865-742-5430 visit us at www.iiaweb.com **ISO 9001:2008 and ISO/IEC 20000:2011: Registered Quality Management Systems** -------------- next part -------------- Agree with all that has been said so far. This is an important standard that needs attention. Happy New Year to all! Gail On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 1:18 PM, margie_hlava <[1]mhlava at accessinn.com> wrote: I agree. I wrote up a 31 page document how about the standard and what I thought needed to be improved and sent it to the CCM so that we could get this moving. In addition to the points already made I think the use of Taxonomies and other KOS in? websites and search is important to consider. Marjorie Hlava [2]Mhlava at accessinn.com Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Thornburg,Gail <[3]thornbug at oclc.org> wrote: > > Concepts rather than terms,? that is important > > -----Original Message----- > From: Asis-standards [mailto:[4]asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of ZENG, MARCIA > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 6:47 PM > To: Mark Needleman; ASIST Standards Committee > Subject: [Asis-standards] Z39.19 Re: Upcoming vote - Part 2 > > Mark, > Z30.19 is an important standard. > I agree with the vote: > YES - Approve the Revision of the standard > > As a member of the Z39.19 and ISO 25964, I felt strongly that the revision is needed. Here are a few points in addition to the previous ??notes?? came with your message. Margie may have a lot more to add! > > 1. The ISO 25964 ??Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies" > [1] need to be referred and coordinated. > 2. Make a complete new section about using W3X??s ??SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System" with the eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)[2] which was released as W3C recommendations in 2009. There is already an alignment of SKOS with ISO25964. > 3. There are issues of inappropriate guidelines in the 2005 version (see notes below). They should be modified according to the ISO standard and the current best practices in the digital age. > 4. One of the fundamental changes in the newer ISO standard is the notion to center the ??concepts?? rather than ??terms?? in thesauri.[3] As the Internet of Things are embraced by the world, this ??thing??- (aka ??resource??, ??entity??, ??res??)-centered vocabulary control approach requires the NISO standard catch up and build on the new notion, like what ISO > 25964 did. > > My two cents? > Marcia Zeng > > [1] [5]http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ > [2] [6]http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ > [3] [7]http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ > > Notes: (from previous email you sent) > The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to current use. There are also, terms such as ??generic structure?? which could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ?- > Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but without parentheses by using natural language order. > The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. > > > > > >> >> 5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, >> Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies >> >> This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard >> ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, >> and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard >> was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 >> REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. >> >> 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) >> >> NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) >> >> ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting >> pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) >> >> Notes: >> The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such >> as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource >> Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to >> ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the >> definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and >> Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition >> of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to >> current use. There are also, terms such as ??generic structure?? which >> could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in >> some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section >> 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is >> contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and >> 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters Parentheses) which call for the >> avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when >> disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided >> completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, >> but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to >> use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms >> (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which >> is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of >> adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). >> Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing >> terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision >> could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. >> >> The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these >> concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a >> recommendation to review and revise Z39.19. >> >> Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who >> are familiar with this subject can provide comments and a >> recommendation for a vote > > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > [8]Asis-standards at asis.org > [9]http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > [10]Asis-standards at asis.org > [11]http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > _______________________________________________ Asis-standards mailing list [12]Asis-standards at asis.org [13]http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards -- ? Gail? Hodge ? ? Information International Associates, Inc. ? Email: [14]ghodge at iiaweb.com ? Phone:? 865-742-5430 ? visit us at [15]www.iiaweb.com **ISO 9001:2008 and ISO/IEC 20000:2011: Registered Quality Management Systems** References 1. mailto:mhlava at accessinn.com 2. mailto:Mhlava at accessinn.com 3. mailto:thornbug at oclc.org 4. mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org 5. http://www.niso.org/schemas/iso25964/ 6. http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ 7. http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2012/v24no1/clarke/ 8. mailto:Asis-standards at asis.org 9. http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards 10. mailto:Asis-standards at asis.org 11. http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards 12. mailto:Asis-standards at asis.org 13. http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards 14. mailto:ghodge at iiaweb.com 15. http://www.iiaweb.com/ From tdickey1 at kent.edu Mon Jan 4 08:27:33 2016 From: tdickey1 at kent.edu (TIMOTHY DICKEY) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:27:33 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] upcoming votes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good morning, all, 1) Key Indicators for Museums - no strong opinion, and unfortunately no-one to suggest with their permission by 1/5 2) Z39.2 - we should Reaffirm 3) Quality assessments for National Libraries - once again unfortunately no suggestions; this probably means abstain TJD Timothy J. Dickey, Ph.D., MLIS. tdickey1 at kent.edu (614) 785-1632 On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Thornburg,Gail wrote: > 1) I do not have an opinion > 2) think we should Re affirm > ________________________________________ > From: Asis-standards [asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] on behalf of Mark > Needleman [needleman_mark at yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:20 PM > To: ASIST Standards Committee > Subject: [Asis-standards] upcoming votes > > Folks > > some upcoming votes - sorry about the short timeframe on some of them - > ill be sending these out in 2 emails > > mark > > > > 1) New Work Item Proposal ISO 18461 key indicators for museums > > his is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard Key > indicators for museums? . > > An International Standard ?Key indicators for museums? 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 Expert?s > 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 by 1/5/2016 - if you have an suggestions for someone who you > think should work on this let me know > > > > > 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) > > ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting > pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) > > 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 by 1/6/2016 - note u think we should reaffirm this > > > > 3) New Work Item Proposal ISO /TR 28118 Quality assessment for national > libraries > > his is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard > "Quality assessment for national libraries?. > > The proposed Technical Report ?Quality assessment for national libraries? > shall cover two purposes: > - to revise and enlarge the collection of performance indicators in ISO/TR > 28118 (2009) > ?Performance indicators for national libraries?, > - 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 Expert?s > 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 by 1/7/2016 - if you have an suggestions for someone who you > think should work on this let me know > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > Asis-standards at asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > -------------- next part -------------- Good morning, all, 1) Key Indicators for Museums - no strong opinion, and unfortunately no-one to suggest with their permission by 1/5 2) Z39.2 - we should Reaffirm 3) Quality assessments for National Libraries - once again unfortunately no suggestions; this probably means abstain TJD Timothy J. Dickey, Ph.D., MLIS. [1]tdickey1 at kent.edu (614) 785-1632 On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Thornburg,Gail <[2]thornbug at oclc.org> wrote: 1) I do not have an opinion 2) think we should Re affirm ________________________________________ From: Asis-standards [[3]asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] on behalf of Mark Needleman [[4]needleman_mark at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:20 PM To: ASIST Standards Committee Subject: [Asis-standards] upcoming votes Folks some upcoming votes - sorry about the short timeframe on some of them - ill be sending these out in 2 emails mark 1) New Work Item Proposal ISO 18461 key indicators for museums his is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard Key indicators for museums? . An International Standard ?Key indicators for museums? 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 Expert?s 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 by 1/5/2016 - if you have an suggestions for someone who you think should work on this let me know 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) ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) 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 by 1/6/2016 - note u think we should reaffirm this 3) New Work Item Proposal ISO /TR 28118 Quality assessment for national libraries his is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard "Quality assessment for national libraries?. The proposed Technical Report ?Quality assessment for national libraries? shall cover two purposes: - to revise and enlarge the collection of performance indicators in ISO/TR 28118 (2009) ?Performance indicators for national libraries?, - 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 Expert?s 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 by 1/7/2016 -? if you have an suggestions for someone who you think should work on this let me know _______________________________________________ Asis-standards mailing list [5]Asis-standards at asis.org [6]http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards References 1. mailto:tdickey1 at kent.edu 2. mailto:thornbug at oclc.org 3. mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org 4. mailto:needleman_mark at yahoo.com 5. mailto:Asis-standards at asis.org 6. http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards From tdickey1 at kent.edu Mon Jan 4 08:27:44 2016 From: tdickey1 at kent.edu (TIMOTHY DICKEY) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Upcoming vote - Part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good morning, again, all, 4) Tracking links - I would be very interested in seeing this kind of tracking possible, though am not willing to volunteer at this time. I also wonder how library stakeholders would feel about the topic; I fear there would only be a knee-jerk reaction on patron privacy concerns. 5) Z39.18 - revision indeed seems in order; thank you to Marcia for the additional comments! 6) no opinion tjd Timothy J. Dickey, Ph.D., MLIS. tdickey1 at kent.edu (614) 785-1632 On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Mark Needleman wrote: > 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 ?losing? 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 needed by 1.8/2016 - if anyone has any interest in participating > in this effort or knows someone who would make a good committee member let > me know > > 5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, > and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies > > This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard ANSI/NISO > Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management > of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard was last reviewed and > reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 REVISE the > standard. Please see further notes below. > > 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) > > NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) > > ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting > pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) > > Notes: > The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as > replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description > and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the > current versions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in > Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced > or improved, such as the definition of document which is currently too > broad and does not correspond to current use. There are also, terms such as > ?generic structure? which could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy > approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be clarified > such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the > standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 > (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ? Parentheses) which > call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when > disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided > completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but > without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to use > adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section > 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is contrary > to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs > as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs > are inherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. > Additional review and revision could and should be done of the sections > discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary > management systems. > > The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these concerns > and additional ones not referenced here support a recommendation to review > and revise Z39.19. > > Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who are > familiar with this subject can provide comments and a recommendation for a > vote > > 6) ANSI/NISO Z39.18-2005 (R2010) Scientific and Technical Reports - > Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation > > This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard ANSI/NISO > Z39.18-2005 (R2010) Scientific and Technical Reports - Preparation, > Presentation, and Preservation. This standard was last reviewed and > reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.18 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 REVISE the > standard, in order to address digital formats for documents. > > 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) > > NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) > > ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting > pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) > > Comments needed by 1/23/2016 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asis-standards mailing list > Asis-standards at asis.org > http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards > > -------------- next part -------------- Good morning, again, all, 4) Tracking links - I would be very interested in seeing this kind of tracking possible, though am not willing to volunteer at this time. I also wonder how library stakeholders would feel about the topic; I fear there would only be a knee-jerk reaction on patron privacy concerns. 5) Z39.18 - revision indeed seems in order; thank you to Marcia for the additional comments! 6) no opinion tjd Timothy J. Dickey, Ph.D., MLIS. [1]tdickey1 at kent.edu (614) 785-1632 On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Mark Needleman <[2]needleman_mark at yahoo.com> wrote: 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 ?losing? 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 needed by 1.8/2016 - if anyone has any interest in participating in this effort or knows someone who would make a good committee member let me know 5) ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. This standard was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.19 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 REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) Notes: The community has noted the need for general revisions and edits, such as replacing references to AACR2 with references to RDA (Resource Description and Access) and revising references to ISO standards to ensure they are the current versions. There are also a number of the definitions of terms in Section 4 (Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms) which could be enhanced or improved, such as the definition of document which is currently too broad and does not correspond to current use. There are also, terms such as ?generic structure? which could be argued to be an obsolete taxonomy approach. The wording in some sections is confusing and should be clarified such as Section 5.3.4 (Facet Analysis). In some cases the guidance in the standard is contrary to common practice, such as Sections 6.2.1 (Homographs) and 6.7.2.1 (Non-Alphabetic Characters ? Parentheses) which call for the avoidance of the use of parentheses whenever possible when disambiguating terms. Many would argue that they should be avoided completely by adding the parenthetical word as part of the descriptor, but without parentheses by using natural language order. The call to use adjectives and adverbs to limit the number of compound terms (Section 6.4.2.2; Section 6.4.3) are further examples of guidance which is contrary to standard best practices by suggesting the use of adjectives or adverbs as terms (and not as part of a noun phrase). Naked adjectives and adverbs are inherently ambiguous as indexing terms. This section should be removed. Additional review and revision could and should be done of the sections discussing hierarchical relationships, display types and vocabulary management systems. The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these concerns and additional ones not referenced here support a recommendation to review and revise Z39.19. Comments needed by 1/23/2016 - Hopefully members of the committee who are familiar with this subject can provide comments and a recommendation for a vote 6) ANSI/NISO Z39.18-2005 (R2010) Scientific and Technical Reports - Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard ANSI/NISO Z39.18-2005 (R2010) Scientific and Technical Reports - Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation. This standard was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.18 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 REVISE the standard, in order to address digital formats for documents. 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) Comments needed by 1/23/2016 _______________________________________________ Asis-standards mailing list [3]Asis-standards at asis.org [4]http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards References 1. mailto:tdickey1 at kent.edu 2. mailto:needleman_mark at yahoo.com 3. mailto:Asis-standards at asis.org 4. http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Mon Jan 4 08:36:50 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (needleman_mark at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:36:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Asis-standards] upcoming votes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Timothy Thanks for the feedback? Mark Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone Albert Einstein "There are two things that are limitless, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe" On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:27 AM -0800, "TIMOTHY DICKEY" wrote: Good morning, all, 1) Key Indicators for Museums - no strong opinion, and unfortunately no-one to suggest with their permission by 1/5 2) Z39.2 - we should Reaffirm 3) Quality assessments for National Libraries - once again unfortunately no suggestions; this probably means abstain TJD Timothy J. Dickey, Ph.D., MLIS. tdickey1 at kent.edu (614) 785-1632 On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Thornburg,Gail wrote: 1) I do not have an opinion 2) think we should Re affirm ________________________________________ From: Asis-standards [asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] on behalf of Mark Needleman [needleman_mark at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:20 PM To: ASIST Standards Committee Subject: [Asis-standards] upcoming votes Folks some upcoming votes - sorry about the short timeframe on some of them - ill be sending these out in 2 emails mark 1) New Work Item Proposal ISO 18461 key indicators for museums his is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard Key indicators for museums? . An International Standard ?Key indicators for museums? 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 Expert?s 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 by 1/5/2016 - if you have an suggestions for someone who you think should work on this let me know 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) ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) 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 by 1/6/2016 - note u think we should reaffirm this 3) New Work Item Proposal ISO /TR 28118 Quality assessment for national libraries his is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard "Quality assessment for national libraries?. The proposed Technical Report ?Quality assessment for national libraries? shall cover two purposes: - to revise and enlarge the collection of performance indicators in ISO/TR 28118 (2009) ?Performance indicators for national libraries?, - 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 Expert?s 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 by 1/7/2016 -? if you have an suggestions for someone who you think should work on this let me know _______________________________________________ Asis-standards mailing list Asis-standards at asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards -------------- next part -------------- Timothy Thanks for the feedback Mark Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone Albert Einstein "There are two things that are limitless, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe" On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:27 AM -0800, "TIMOTHY DICKEY" <[1]tdickey1 at kent.edu> wrote: Good morning, all, 1) Key Indicators for Museums - no strong opinion, and unfortunately no-one to suggest with their permission by 1/5 2) Z39.2 - we should Reaffirm 3) Quality assessments for National Libraries - once again unfortunately no suggestions; this probably means abstain TJD Timothy J. Dickey, Ph.D., MLIS. [2]tdickey1 at kent.edu (614) 785-1632 On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Thornburg,Gail <[3]thornbug at oclc.org> wrote: 1) I do not have an opinion 2) think we should Re affirm ________________________________________ From: Asis-standards [[4]asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] on behalf of Mark Needleman [[5]needleman_mark at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:20 PM To: ASIST Standards Committee Subject: [Asis-standards] upcoming votes Folks some upcoming votes - sorry about the short timeframe on some of them - ill be sending these out in 2 emails mark 1) New Work Item Proposal ISO 18461 key indicators for museums his is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard Key indicators for museums? . An International Standard ?Key indicators for museums? 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 Expert?s 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 by 1/5/2016 - if you have an suggestions for someone who you think should work on this let me know 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) ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) 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 by 1/6/2016 - note u think we should reaffirm this 3) New Work Item Proposal ISO /TR 28118 Quality assessment for national libraries his is a TC46/SC8 new work item proposal to develop a new standard "Quality assessment for national libraries?. The proposed Technical Report ?Quality assessment for national libraries? shall cover two purposes: - to revise and enlarge the collection of performance indicators in ISO/TR 28118 (2009) ?Performance indicators for national libraries?, - 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 Expert?s 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 by 1/7/2016 - if you have an suggestions for someone who you think should work on this let me know _______________________________________________ Asis-standards mailing list [6]Asis-standards at asis.org [7]http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards References 1. mailto:tdickey1 at kent.edu 2. mailto:tdickey1 at kent.edu 3. mailto:thornbug at oclc.org 4. mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org 5. mailto:needleman_mark at yahoo.com 6. mailto:Asis-standards at asis.org 7. http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Wed Jan 6 11:37:51 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:37:51 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Votes Message-ID: <854B9633-0FE5-4274-9DA0-947CABB13E51@yahoo.com> Folks i just cast the following votes: Periodic Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (R2009) Information Interchange Format - Affirm (i doubt anyone would have any objection to this but let me know if you do) New Work Item Proposal ISO 18461 key indicators for museums - YES mark -------------- next part -------------- Folks i just cast the following votes: Periodic Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (R2009) Information Interchange Format - Affirm (i doubt anyone would have any objection to this but let me know if you do) New Work Item Proposal ISO 18461 key indicators for museums - YES mark From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Thu Jan 7 14:55:31 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] standards votes Message-ID: <9BE10751-B5F4-440C-B7AB-887EBF19C0AC@yahoo.com> Folks I just cast the following 2 votes: New Work Item Proposal ISO /TR 28118 Quality assessment for national libraries - YES Approval of Proposed NISO New Work Item: Recommended Practice for Tracking Link Origins in a Networked Information Environment - YES with the following comment: ASIST has some concerns about the privacy implications of this work and believes protecting user privacy should be a major consideration of any work that is done in this area Comment provided by Timothy Dickey Ill be sending out some mail in a bit about some more upcoming votes Mark -------------- next part -------------- Folks I just cast the following 2 votes: New Work Item Proposal ISO /TR 28118 Quality assessment for national libraries - YES Approval of Proposed NISO New Work Item: Recommended Practice for Tracking Link Origins in a Networked Information Environment - YES with the following comment: ASIST has some concerns about the privacy implications of this work and believes protecting user privacy should be a major consideration of any work that is done in this area Comment provided by Timothy Dickey Ill be sending out some mail in a bit about some more upcoming votes Mark From mneedlem at ufl.edu Thu Jan 7 16:59:18 2016 From: mneedlem at ufl.edu (Mark H Needleman) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 21:59:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Asis-standards] Fwd: [lita-erm] NISO Publishes Updated Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) Standard 1.1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6BBE460AB964F635.AB67BB09-DA70-4919-BAB9-3B972FFE8843@mail.outlook.com> FYI MARK Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "NISO Announce" Date: Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:53 PM -0800 Subject: [lita-erm] NISO Publishes Updated Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) Standard 1.1 To: "NISO Announce" NISO Publishes Updated Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) Standard 1.1 Baltimore, MD - January 7, 2016 - The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) announces the formal publication of the updated version of JATS: Journal Article Tag Suite 1.1, ANSI/NISO Z39.96-2015. This newly official edition is a revision of ANSI/NISO Z39.96-2012, also known as JATS 1.0, first published in July 2012. The purpose of JATS is to define a suite of XML elements and attributes that describes the content of metadata and journal articles using a common format that enables the exchange of journal content. This Tag Suite thus is intended to preserve intellectual content of journals independent of the form in which the content was originally delivered, and enables an archive to capture structural and semantic components of existing material. In addition, the JATS standard includes three implementations of the suite, called Tag Sets, which are intended to provide models for archiving, publishing, and authoring journal article content. "JATS 1.1 continues to build on the success of JATS 1.0, which was itself the successor to the National Library of Medicine (NLM) DTD version 3.0, widely adopted in industry," comments Jeffrey Beck, NCBI Technical Information Specialist at the National Library of Medicine and Co-chair of the NISO JATS Standing Committee. "JATS is used to tag thousands of journals worldwide by a wide array of implementers and publishers. And JATS continues to grow," says Beck. "The TaxPub extension provides elements for tagging taxonomic treatments in journal articles. BITS is an NLM effort to make a JATS-based book model, and NISO STS is a NISO activity to make a JATS-based standard for Standards based on ISO STS." "Comments from users made on JATS 1.0 through February 2015 have been addressed by the NISO JATS Standing Committee and incorporated into JATS 1.1. All changes are also backward compatible with JATS 1.0, which means that any document that was valid according to JATS 1.0 will be valid according to JATS 1.1," explains B. Tommie Usdin, President of Mulberry Technologies, Inc. and co-chair of the NISO JATS Standing Committee. "We are pleased that this formalization, performed via the ANSI/NISO consensus standardization process, enables adopters of JATS to trust that the enhancements added to JATS 1.1 are fully stable and will function as intended." Nettie Lagace, NISO Associate Director of Programs, comments that, "JATS 1.0 was approved by ANSI and published by NISO in 2012. Since then, updates to the standard are managed through an ANSI-approved Continuous Maintenance procedure, which means that comments are reviewed and approved by a NISO JATS Standing Committee on a regular basis before the full updated standard is formalized." Lagace continues, "The Standing Committee evaluated feasibility and priority of all comments and created responses, which are now available via the NISO JATS web pages, so that any user can view the full history of these changes." The NISO JATS 1.1 standard is available as both an online XML document and a freely available PDF from the NISO website at http://www.niso.org/workrooms/journalmarkup. Supporting documentation and schemas in DTD, RELAX NG, and W3C Schema formats are available at http://jats.nlm.nih.gov. About NISO NISO, based in Baltimore, Maryland, fosters the development and maintenance of standards that facilitate the creation, persistent management, and effective interchange of information so that it can be trusted for use in research and learning. To fulfill this mission, NISO engages libraries, publishers, information aggregators, and other organizations that support learning, research, and scholarship through the creation, organization, management, and curation of knowledge. NISO works with intersecting communities of interest and across the entire lifecycle of information standards. NISO is a not-for-profit association accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). For more information, visit the NISO website. -------------- next part -------------- FYI MARK Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "NISO Announce" <[1]niso-announce at niso.org> Date: Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:53 PM -0800 Subject: [lita-erm] NISO Publishes Updated Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) Standard 1.1 To: "NISO Announce" <[2]niso-announce at niso.org> Inline image 1 NISO Publishes Updated Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) Standard 1.1 Baltimore, MD - January 7, 2016 - The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) announces the formal publication of the updated version of JATS: Journal Article Tag Suite 1.1, ANSI/NISO Z39.96-2015. This newly official edition is a revision of ANSI/NISO Z39.96-2012, also known as JATS 1.0, first published in July 2012. The purpose of JATS is to define a suite of XML elements and attributes that describes the content of metadata and journal articles using a common format that enables the exchange of journal content. This Tag Suite thus is intended to preserve intellectual content of journals independent of the form in which the content was originally delivered, and enables an archive to capture structural and semantic components of existing material. In addition, the JATS standard includes three implementations of the suite, called Tag Sets, which are intended to provide models for archiving, publishing, and authoring journal article content. "JATS 1.1 continues to build on the success of JATS 1.0, which was itself the successor to the National Library of Medicine (NLM) DTD version 3.0, widely adopted in industry," comments Jeffrey Beck, NCBI Technical Information Specialist at the National Library of Medicine and Co-chair of the NISO JATS Standing Committee. "JATS is used to tag thousands of journals worldwide by a wide array of implementers and publishers. And JATS continues to grow," says Beck. "The TaxPub extension provides elements for tagging taxonomic treatments in journal articles. BITS is an NLM effort to make a JATS-based book model, and NISO STS is a NISO activity to make a JATS-based standard for Standards based on ISO STS." "Comments from users made on JATS 1.0 through February 2015 have been addressed by the NISO JATS Standing Committee and incorporated into JATS 1.1. All changes are also backward compatible with JATS 1.0, which means that any document that was valid according to JATS 1.0 will be valid according to JATS 1.1," explains B. Tommie Usdin, President of Mulberry Technologies, Inc. and co-chair of the NISO JATS Standing Committee. "We are pleased that this formalization, performed via the ANSI/NISO consensus standardization process, enables adopters of JATS to trust that the enhancements added to JATS 1.1 are fully stable and will function as intended." Nettie Lagace, NISO Associate Director of Programs, comments that, "JATS 1.0 was approved by ANSI and published by NISO in 2012. Since then, updates to the standard are managed through an ANSI-approved Continuous Maintenance procedure, which means that comments are reviewed and approved by a NISO JATS Standing Committee on a regular basis before the full updated standard is formalized." Lagace continues, "The Standing Committee evaluated feasibility and priority of all comments and created responses, which are now available via the NISO JATS web pages, so that any user can view the full history of these changes." The NISO JATS 1.1 standard is available as both an online XML document and a freely available PDF from the NISO website at [3]http://www.niso.org/workrooms/journalmarkup.Supportingdocumentationand schemas in DTD, RELAX NG, and W3C Schema formats are available at [4]http://jats.nlm.nih.gov. About NISO NISO, based in Baltimore, Maryland, fosters the development and maintenance of standards that facilitate the creation, persistent management, and effective interchange of information so that it can be trusted for use in research and learning. To fulfill this mission, NISO engages libraries, publishers, information aggregators, and other organizations that support learning, research, and scholarship through the creation, organization, management, and curation of knowledge. NISO works with intersecting communities of interest and across the entire lifecycle of information standards. NISO is a not-for-profit association accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). For more information, [5]visit the NISO website. References 1. mailto:niso-announce at niso.org 2. mailto:niso-announce at niso.org 3. http://www.niso.org/workrooms/journalmarkup 4. http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/ 5. http://www.niso.org/ From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Sat Jan 9 14:04:59 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:04:59 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] some more upcoming votes Message-ID: <49C963ED-CE01-4747-86B3-74B3CAA96E75@yahoo.com> Some upcoming votes - there is also z39.18 ins 19 due plus a couple more ill send out that are due in early February mark 1) ISO/DIS 2108, Information and documentation ? International Standard Book Number (ISBN) This is a TC46/SC9/WG4 ballot for ISO/DIS 2108, Information and documentation ? International Standard Book Number (ISBN). The purpose of this International Standard is to establish the specifications for the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) as a unique international identification system for each product form or edition of a separately available monographic publication published or produced by a specific publisher that is available to the public. It specifies the construction of an ISBN, the rules for its assignment and use, the metadata to be associated with the ISBN allocation, and the administration of the ISBN system. This International Standard is applicable to monographic publications (books) not to textual works (content). Monographic publications include individual sections or chapters where these are made separately available and certain types of related products that are available to the public irrespective of whether those publications are made available for sale or on a gratis basis. Examples of applicable and non-applicable products are provided in Annex A. NOTE: More detailed, operational guidance is provided in the latest version of the Users? Manual available from the Registration Authority for this International Standard (see Clause 7). If this draft standard receives sufficient approval, it can proceed directly to publication. If it is either not approved, or the Working Group decides to make substantive changes based on ballot comments, an FDIS version may be balloted. Your voting options are: Yes - approve the standard for publication (comments are optional and should generally be editorial in nature; if substantive comments are provided, you are approving the standard even if those changes are not made) No - do not approve the standard for publication (comments are required and should be substantive) Abstain from voting (comments are optional) Comments needed by 1/28/2016 (it looks like this version removes support for 10 digit isbn?s - we need to read it in more detail to see what provision it makes for existing ones) 2) Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005 (R2010) Bibliographic References This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005 (R2010) Bibliographic References. This standard was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.29 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 REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) Notes: The standard was reaffirmed in 2010 with some open questions and comments from members of the community. Since that time additional questions have arisen. It was noted that the standard is contrary to cataloging rules (e.g. capitalization of titles) and in other areas provides guidance which leads to confusion for users (e.g. medium designator). There are sections in the standard which are in conflict with current accepted best practices (e.g. primary author). In addition there are some areas omitted which should be considered, such as versioning of articles and consideration of an expanded list of media types. There is general opinion that the standard should more effectively address Location within a Work, with special focus on electronic documents. Finally, the standard currently calls for placement of DOI in the Notes field as a unique identifier; however, the DOI also serves the purpose of location or availability. Therefore, the Notes field may not be the best field for the DOI. The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these concerns and others not referenced here support a recommendation to review and revise Z39.29. In addition, there remains the open question about the discrepancies between the ISO version of the standard for bibliographic references (ISO 690) and the NISO version Comments needed by 1/29/2016 -------------- next part -------------- Some upcoming votes - there is also z39.18 ins 19 due plus a couple more ill send out that are due in early February mark -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: N848_ISO_DIS_2108.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 334783 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Z39_29_2005_R2010.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1758685 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- 1) ISO/DIS 2108, Information and documentation ? International Standard Book Number (ISBN) This is a TC46/SC9/WG4 ballot for ISO/DIS 2108, Information and documentation ? International Standard Book Number (ISBN). The purpose of this International Standard is to establish the specifications for the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) as a unique international identification system for each product form or edition of a separately available monographic publication published or produced by a specific publisher that is available to the public. It specifies the construction of an ISBN, the rules for its assignment and use, the metadata to be associated with the ISBN allocation, and the administration of the ISBN system. This International Standard is applicable to monographic publications (books) not to textual works (content). Monographic publications include individual sections or chapters where these are made separately available and certain types of related products that are available to the public irrespective of whether those publications are made available for sale or on a gratis basis. Examples of applicable and non-applicable products are provided in Annex A. NOTE: More detailed, operational guidance is provided in the latest version of the Users? Manual available from the Registration Authority for this International Standard (see Clause 7). If this draft standard receives sufficient approval, it can proceed directly to publication. If it is either not approved, or the Working Group decides to make substantive changes based on ballot comments, an FDIS version may be balloted. Your voting options are: Yes - approve the standard for publication (comments are optional and should generally be editorial in nature; if substantive comments are provided, you are approving the standard even if those changes are not made) No - do not approve the standard for publication (comments are required and should be substantive) Abstain from voting (comments are optional) Comments needed by 1/28/2016 (it looks like this version removes support for 10 digit isbn?s - we need to read it in more detail to see what provision it makes for existing ones) 2) Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005 (R2010) Bibliographic References This ballot is for the periodic review of the published standard ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005 (R2010) Bibliographic References. This standard was last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2010. A copy of the Z39.29 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 REVISE the standard. Please see further notes below. 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 Revision of the standard (comments optional) NO - Do not approve the Revision of the standard (comments required) ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) Notes: The standard was reaffirmed in 2010 with some open questions and comments from members of the community. Since that time additional questions have arisen. It was noted that the standard is contrary to cataloging rules (e.g. capitalization of titles) and in other areas provides guidance which leads to confusion for users (e.g. medium designator). There are sections in the standard which are in conflict with current accepted best practices (e.g. primary author). In addition there are some areas omitted which should be considered, such as versioning of articles and consideration of an expanded list of media types. There is general opinion that the standard should more effectively address Location within a Work, with special focus on electronic documents. Finally, the standard currently calls for placement of DOI in the Notes field as a unique identifier; however, the DOI also serves the purpose of location or availability. Therefore, the Notes field may not be the best field for the DOI. The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee feels these concerns and others not referenced here support a recommendation to review and revise Z39.29. In addition, there remains the open question about the discrepancies between the ISO version of the standard for bibliographic references (ISO 690) and the NISO version Comments needed by 1/29/2016 From mhlava at accessinn.com Mon Jan 11 17:57:38 2016 From: mhlava at accessinn.com (Marjorie Hlava) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:57:38 -0700 Subject: [Asis-standards] Linked Data webinar January 22, 2016 Message-ID: <458A238C-6E38-40CF-B6EB-A802F25BA2D2@accessinn.com> Please register for Make Your Thesaurus Smart! with Linked Data - Rio Grande Chapter on Jan 22, 2016 1:00 PM MST at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4555238561738567682 Why is everyone talking about Linked Data? What is it ? and what does it have to do with my taxonomy? Bob Kasenchak will discuss how Linked Open Data concepts can be used in conjunction with your thesaurus to create dynamic web pages, offer relevant content from other sources, add value to research portals, and transform the Internet into a giant database for satisfying queries. This talk offers a short introduction to the concepts in play (and the conundrums they introduce), continues with a brief technical explanation of the processes involved, and concludes with examples of the cool stuff made possible by this technology. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Brought to you by GoToWebinar? Webinars Made Easy? -------------- next part -------------- Please register for Make Your Thesaurus Smart! with Linked Data - Rio Grande Chapter on Jan 22, 2016 1:00 PM MST at: [1]https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4555238561738567682 Why is everyone talking about Linked Data? What is it ? and what does it have to do with my taxonomy? Bob Kasenchak will discuss how Linked Open Data concepts can be used in conjunction with your thesaurus to create dynamic web pages, offer relevant content from other sources, add value to research portals, and transform the Internet into a giant database for satisfying queries. This talk offers a short introduction to the concepts in play (and the conundrums they introduce), continues with a brief technical explanation of the processes involved, and concludes with examples of the cool stuff made possible by this technology. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Brought to you by GoToWebinar? Webinars Made Easy? References 1. https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4555238561738567682 From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Thu Jan 14 14:07:14 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Votes due in February Message-ID: <62063973-5580-4A33-B86F-742B9AE07C3F@yahoo.com> Folks the following votes are due in February: ( relevant documents attached) mark 1) ISO/FDIS 15489-1 (Ed 2) Information and documentation -- Records management -- Part 1: Concepts and principles This is a ballot for the TC46/SC11 draft standard, ISO/FDIS 15489-1 (Ed 2), Final ballot for approval before publication of ISO 15489-1 (Ed 2) Information and documentation -- Records management -- Part 1: Concepts and principles This part of ISO 15489 defines the concepts and principles from which approaches to the creation, capture and management of records are developed. This part of ISO 15489 describes concepts and principles relating to the following: a) records, metadata for records and records systems; b) policies, assigned responsibilities, monitoring and training supporting the effective management of records; c) recurrent analysis of business context and the identification of records requirements; d) records controls; e) processes for creating, capturing and managing records. This part of ISO 15489 applies to the creation, capture and management of records regardless of structure or form, in all types of business and technological environments, over time. This is expected to be the final draft of this standard and if approved, it can proceed directly to publication. Your voting options are: Approval - approve for publication [comments optional] Approval with corrections [comments required] Disapproval - do not approve for publication [comments required and should be substantive] Abstain from voting [comments optional] Comments due by 2/1/2016 2) ISO/DIS 17068-Information and documentation - Trusted third party repository for digital records This is a TC46/SC11 ballot for ISO/DIS 17068, Information and documentation - Trusted third party repository for digital records. The ISO ballot does not officially open until November 11, 2015, however the draft standard is distributed in advance to allow for local translations. We are opening the NISO ballot now to allow a longer period of review. This International Standard specifies requirements for a Trusted Third Party Repository(TTPR) to support the authorized custody service in order to ensure provable integrity and authenticity of the clients? digital records and serve as a source of reliable evidence. This International Standard is applicable to: ? legally reliable retention service for digital records as a source of reliable evidence during the retention periods of legal obligation in both the private and the public sector, and; ? reliable repository service by enabling outsourcing management. This International Standard has the limitation that the authorized custody of the stored records is between only the TTPR and the client. TTPR Certificate of authenticity shall limit on the digital records that prove its authenticity. If this draft standard receives sufficient approval, it can proceed directly to publication. If it is either not approved, or the Working Group decides to make substantive changes based on ballot comments, an FDIS version may be balloted. Your voting options are: Yes - approve the standard for publication (comments are optional and should generally be editorial in nature; if substantive comments are provided, you are approving the standard even if those changes are not made) No - do not approve the standard for publication (comments are required and should be substantive) Abstain from voting (comments are optional) (Note - even though the text says the NISO ballot was opened before 11/11/2015 - it wasn?t available on the NISO site until recently) Comments due by 2/2/2016 3) Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2009), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2009), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup. This standard is a national adoption of the international standard ISO 12083:1994 (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=20866 ). In complete conformance with ISO 8879 (SGML - Standard Generalized Markup Language), 12083 provides a toolkit for developing customized SGML applications. Four Document Type Definitions are specified for books, serials, articles, and mathematics. Instructions for the preparation of text for the near automatic conversion to grade-2 braille and for publication in large-print and computer voice editions are included. In accordance with NISO procedures, all review ballots are accompanied by a recommendation from the responsible leadership committee. The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommends a vote of WITHDRAW (do not continue with NISO adoption of the ISO standard). As a member of the voting pool, you are required to vote on this ballot. Please cast your ballot with one of the following voting options, in response to the CCM recommended action of withdraw: YES - Approve the withdrawal of the national standard (comments optional) NO - Do not approve the withdrawal of the national standard (comments required) ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) NOTES: This recommendation/ballot is not as to whether the ISO standard should be reaffirmed/revised/withdrawn, but rather whether NISO should continue to adopt the ISO standard as a national standard. If this standard is withdrawn as a NISO standard, it will continue to be accessible at ISO. NISO participates in ISO discussions through TC46, so Voting Members will continue to have a voice in any modifications or updates, if any take place Comments due by 2/2/2016 (personal recommendation is to vote YES since this is the SGML standard- NO document attached to this vote - the NISO version of the standard is available at www.niso.org 4) Approval of convenor for TC46/WG7 on ISO 8 and call for participation SHORT TURN AROUND BALLOT This is a ballot is to approve Laurie Kaplan as the convenor (chairperson) for TC46/WG7 on ISO 8 "Presentation of periodicals including PIE-J (The Presentation & Identification of E-Journals)" and a call for participation for U.S. experts on the working group to revise the standard. A short bio of Laurie Kaplan is included with the ballot. The standard was created when periodicals were published and distributed in print forms; now, a large percentage of periodicals are now published in digital form via the World Wide Web. This work will update the standard to ensure that requirements for effective and informative presentation of periodicals published in electronic form are fulfilled. If the US votes to approve the convenor, 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 Expert?s full name and email 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 be sure the named individual has agreed to work on this project prior to nominating him/her. Your voting options are: YES - approve the appointment of Laurie Kaplan as convenor (comments optional; include comments if you have an expert nominee to the WG) NO - do not approve the appointment of Laurie Kaplan as convenor (comments required to indicate why you are not approving; optionally add to the comments if you have an expert nominee to the WG) ABSTAIN from voting Comments due by 2/3/2016 - I can?t imagine anyone opposing the proposed convener (but i could be wrong) - if anyone wants to participate in this work or knows of someone who would make a good candidate let me know -------------- next part -------------- Folks the following votes are due in February: ( relevant documents attached) mark -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ISO_DIS_17068(E)-Character_PDF_document.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1253944 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ISO_FDIS_15489-1_(E).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 408632 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ISO-TC046_N2559_NWIP for revision of ISO 8.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 324882 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ISO-TC046_N2567_NP 8 Ballot results.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 727111 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ISO-TC046_N2572_WG7 new convenor and call for experts.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 174498 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- 1) ISO/FDIS 15489-1 (Ed 2) Information and documentation -- Records management -- Part 1: Concepts and principles This is a ballot for the TC46/SC11 draft standard, ISO/FDIS 15489-1 (Ed 2), Final ballot for approval before publication of ISO 15489-1 (Ed 2) Information and documentation -- Records management -- Part 1: Concepts and principles This part of ISO 15489 defines the concepts and principles from which approaches to the creation, capture and management of records are developed. This part of ISO 15489 describes concepts and principles relating to the following: a) records, metadata for records and records systems; b) policies, assigned responsibilities, monitoring and training supporting the effective management of records; c) recurrent analysis of business context and the identification of records requirements; d) records controls; e) processes for creating, capturing and managing records. This part of ISO 15489 applies to the creation, capture and management of records regardless of structure or form, in all types of business and technological environments, over time. This is expected to be the final draft of this standard and if approved, it can proceed directly to publication. Your voting options are: Approval - approve for publication [comments optional] Approval with corrections [comments required] Disapproval - do not approve for publication [comments required and should be substantive] Abstain from voting [comments optional] Comments due by 2/1/2016 2) ISO/DIS 17068-Information and documentation - Trusted third party repository for digital records This is a TC46/SC11 ballot for ISO/DIS 17068, Information and documentation - Trusted third party repository for digital records. The ISO ballot does not officially open until November 11, 2015, however the draft standard is distributed in advance to allow for local translations. We are opening the NISO ballot now to allow a longer period of review. This International Standard specifies requirements for a Trusted Third Party Repository(TTPR) to support the authorized custody service in order to ensure provable integrity and authenticity of the clients? digital records and serve as a source of reliable evidence. This International Standard is applicable to: ? legally reliable retention service for digital records as a source of reliable evidence during the retention periods of legal obligation in both the private and the public sector, and; ? reliable repository service by enabling outsourcing management. This International Standard has the limitation that the authorized custody of the stored records is between only the TTPR and the client. TTPR Certificate of authenticity shall limit on the digital records that prove its authenticity. If this draft standard receives sufficient approval, it can proceed directly to publication. If it is either not approved, or the Working Group decides to make substantive changes based on ballot comments, an FDIS version may be balloted. Your voting options are: Yes - approve the standard for publication (comments are optional and should generally be editorial in nature; if substantive comments are provided, you are approving the standard even if those changes are not made) No - do not approve the standard for publication (comments are required and should be substantive) Abstain from voting (comments are optional) (Note - even though the text says the NISO ballot was opened before 11/11/2015 - it wasn?t available on the NISO site until recently) Comments due by 2/2/2016 3) Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2009), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2009), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup. This standard is a national adoption of the international standard ISO 12083:1994 ([1]http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=20866).Incomplete conformance with ISO 8879 (SGML - Standard Generalized Markup Language), 12083 provides a toolkit for developing customized SGML applications. Four Document Type Definitions are specified for books, serials, articles, and mathematics. Instructions for the preparation of text for the near automatic conversion to grade-2 braille and for publication in large-print and computer voice editions are included. In accordance with NISO procedures, all review ballots are accompanied by a recommendation from the responsible leadership committee. The Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommends a vote of WITHDRAW (do not continue with NISO adoption of the ISO standard). As a member of the voting pool, you are required to vote on this ballot. Please cast your ballot with one of the following voting options, in response to the CCM recommended action of withdraw: YES - Approve the withdrawal of the national standard (comments optional) NO - Do not approve the withdrawal of the national standard (comments required) ABSTAIN from voting (comments are required since members of the voting pool volunteered to join, so an abstention vote requires explanation) NOTES: This recommendation/ballot is not as to whether the ISO standard should be reaffirmed/revised/withdrawn, but rather whether NISO should continue to adopt the ISO standard as a national standard. If this standard is withdrawn as a NISO standard, it will continue to be accessible at ISO. NISO participates in ISO discussions through TC46, so Voting Members will continue to have a voice in any modifications or updates, if any take place Comments due by 2/2/2016 (personal recommendation is to vote YES since this is the SGML standard- NO document attached to this vote - the NISO version of the standard is available at [2]www.niso.org 4) Approval of convenor for TC46/WG7 on ISO 8 and call for participation SHORT TURN AROUND BALLOT This is a ballot is to approve Laurie Kaplan as the convenor (chairperson) for TC46/WG7 on ISO 8 "Presentation of periodicals including PIE-J (The Presentation & Identification of E-Journals)" and a call for participation for U.S. experts on the working group to revise the standard. A short bio of Laurie Kaplan is included with the ballot. The standard was created when periodicals were published and distributed in print forms; now, a large percentage of periodicals are now published in digital form via the World Wide Web. This work will update the standard to ensure that requirements for effective and informative presentation of periodicals published in electronic form are fulfilled. If the US votes to approve the convenor, 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 Expert?s full name and email 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 be sure the named individual has agreed to work on this project prior to nominating him/her. Your voting options are: YES - approve the appointment of Laurie Kaplan as convenor (comments optional; include comments if you have an expert nominee to the WG) NO - do not approve the appointment of Laurie Kaplan as convenor (comments required to indicate why you are not approving; optionally add to the comments if you have an expert nominee to the WG) ABSTAIN from voting Comments due by 2/3/2016 - I can?t imagine anyone opposing the proposed convener (but i could be wrong) - if anyone wants to participate in this work or knows of someone who would make a good candidate let me know References 1. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=20866 2. http://www.niso.org/ From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Tue Jan 19 14:10:41 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:10:41 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Bulletin issue Message-ID: Has anyone made any progress on lining up articles for that special issue of the ASIST Bulletin on standards - it would be nice if we could get 4-5 commitments by the end of January or the 1st week of February either from people who would be willing to write articles or even some of us Articles would be due by June to be published on the fall issue (Tim - any progress on that article you mentioned you thought you could get someone to write on Dublin Core?) Thanks Mark From mzeng at kent.edu Tue Jan 19 23:45:31 2016 From: mzeng at kent.edu (ZENG, MARCIA) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 04:45:31 +0000 Subject: [Asis-standards] Bulletin issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mark, The time is very short for locating/inviting people to write. Since this is the ASIST, the standards could be across various domains. I am thinking of metadata area, which has so many new development in terms of: schema.org?s impact, EAD?s new edition (which can go into the whole LAM area), many initiatives in research data?s metadata (http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-14/ has a special issue, and http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-13/, http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jun-12/ all on research data ), the new ontologies for VCARD, for digital rights (ODRL) from W3C, and the whole area for provenance. Any one of the could be extended into a piece. Too much to write all. Maybe one of the ways is to only cover what are new since last 5 years? There are activities in metrics (http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-12/ special issue), sciometrics, and new standards or best practices appeared, e.g., for Altmetrics (http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-13/ special issue) and Webometrics, not sure about standards though. http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative/ >From those who already contributed to these topics you may find an author for that area? Marcia On 1/19/16, 2:10 PM, "Asis-standards on behalf of Mark Needleman" wrote: >Has anyone made any progress on lining up articles for that special issue >of the ASIST Bulletin on standards - it would be nice if we could get 4-5 >commitments by the end of January or the 1st week of February either from >people who would be willing to write articles or even some of us > >Articles would be due by June to be published on the fall issue > >(Tim - any progress on that article you mentioned you thought you could >get someone to write on Dublin Core?) > >Thanks > >Mark >_______________________________________________ >Asis-standards mailing list >Asis-standards at asis.org >http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/asis-standards From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Fri Jan 22 11:31:27 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:31:27 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Votes Message-ID: <4135B809-EB2E-4369-BF82-C707667168BD@yahoo.com> Folks i just cast the following votes in NISO and ISO ( i will be sending out a note with a reminder about some upcoming votes in a bit) I tried to capture all of the comments submitted on Z39.18 and Z39.19 - if i left any out I apologize Mark ????????????????????????????????? Voted YES on Approval of Laurie Kaplan as convenor for TC46/WG7 on ISO 8 and call for participation - ASIST does not wish to nominate anyone at this time Voted YES on Revision ofANSI/NISO Z39.18-2005 (R2010) Scientific and Technical Reports - Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation Detailed Comments were provided by Dorothy McGarry Voted YES on Revision of ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies Detailed comments provided by Marjorie Hlava and Marcia Zeng -------------- next part -------------- Folks i just cast the following votes in NISO and ISO ( i will be sending out a note with a reminder about some upcoming votes in a bit) I tried to capture all of the comments submitted on Z39.18 and Z39.19 - if i left any out I apologize Mark ????????????????????????????????? Voted YES on Approval of Laurie Kaplan as convenor for TC46/WG7 on ISO 8 and call for participation - ASIST does not wish to nominate anyone at this time Voted YES on Revision ofANSI/NISO Z39.18-2005 (R2010) Scientific and Technical Reports - Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation Detailed Comments were provided by Dorothy McGarry Voted YES on Revision of ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies Detailed comments provided by Marjorie Hlava and Marcia Zeng From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Fri Jan 22 16:16:20 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:16:20 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Upcoming votes reminder Message-ID: <022C3788-1416-4221-83E5-C4C59C730C9B@yahoo.com> Folks just a reminder about a few upcoming votes - I believe i have already sent out the relevant documents but if i missed some let me know and ill forward them on 1) Publication of ISO/DIS 2108, Information and documentation ? International Standard Book Number (ISBN) Comments due by 1/28/2016 2) Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005 (R2010) Bibliographic References - vote to revise comments due by 1/29/2016 3) Publication of ISO/FDIS 15489-1 (Ed 2) Information and documentation -- Records management -- Part 1: Concepts and principles Comments due by 2/1/2016 4) Publication of ISO/DIS 17068-Information and documentation - Trusted third party repository for digital records Comments due by 2/2/2016 5) Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2009), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup - Withdrawal Note: this is only a vote to withdraw the NISO adoption of the ISO SGML standard Comments due by 2/2/2016 -------------- next part -------------- Folks just a reminder about a few upcoming votes - I believe i have already sent out the relevant documents but if i missed some let me know and ill forward them on 1) Publication of ISO/DIS 2108, Information and documentation ? International Standard Book Number (ISBN) Comments due by 1/28/2016 2) Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005 (R2010) Bibliographic References - vote to revise comments due by 1/29/2016 3) Publication of ISO/FDIS 15489-1 (Ed 2) Information and documentation -- Records management -- Part 1: Concepts and principles Comments due by 2/1/2016 4) Publication of ISO/DIS 17068-Information and documentation - Trusted third party repository for digital records Comments due by 2/2/2016 5) Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2009), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup - Withdrawal Note: this is only a vote to withdraw the NISO adoption of the ISO SGML standard Comments due by 2/2/2016 From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Mon Jan 25 13:15:13 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Asis-standards] Bulletin Message-ID: Folks? I hate to be a pessimist or hard task master but (except for Tim Dickey) there doesn't seem to be a lot of effort in coming up with articles and authors for the fall issue of the Bulletin. Marcia Zeng has given me some suggestions and I'm going to contact them but we need 4-6 committed articles within the next 2 weeks or so with articles due by June or I guess we will have to cancel or postpone the special issue on standards scheduled for the fall issue of the Bulletin? If anyone on the committee wants to write an article that would be great and would definitely simplify things Or if you have some people in mind and for whatever reason can't or don't want to solicit them you can send me their contact information and I would be happy to contact them But we do need commitments in the next couple of weeks or the issue won't happen Mark Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone Albert Einstein "There are two things that are limitless, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe" -------------- next part -------------- Folks I hate to be a pessimist or hard task master but (except for Tim Dickey) there doesn't seem to be a lot of effort in coming up with articles and authors for the fall issue of the Bulletin. Marcia Zeng has given me some suggestions and I'm going to contact them but we need 4-6 committed articles within the next 2 weeks or so with articles due by June or I guess we will have to cancel or postpone the special issue on standards scheduled for the fall issue of the Bulletin If anyone on the committee wants to write an article that would be great and would definitely simplify things Or if you have some people in mind and for whatever reason can't or don't want to solicit them you can send me their contact information and I would be happy to contact them But we do need commitments in the next couple of weeks or the issue won't happen Mark Sent from Mark Needleman's iPhone Albert Einstein "There are two things that are limitless, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe" From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Thu Jan 28 13:10:21 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:10:21 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Votes Message-ID: <88A06E2E-4ABD-4FED-ADC0-081BA1B3FD74@yahoo.com> Folks i just cast the following votes 1) Voted YES on the publication of ISO/DIS 2108, Information and documentation ? International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 2) Voted YES to Revise on the Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005 (R2010) Bibliographic References - with the following comment: The standard as published does give the caveat that among the areas over which it does NOT apply is library applications and specifically descriptive cataloging. However, ASIST?s view is that more congruence with practices from librarianship, especially considering the theoretical work that the field has done towards issues such as bibliographic relationships and electronic resources, would greatly increase the potential impact of the standard moving forward Comment provided by Timothy Dickey If anyone else provided comments on Z39.29 that i forgot to include i apologize a few votes will be coming up soon - Ill be sending out a note about them shortly Mark -------------- next part -------------- Folks i just cast the following votes 1) Voted YES on the publication of ISO/DIS 2108, Information and documentation ? International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 2) Voted YES to Revise on the Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005 (R2010) Bibliographic References - with the following comment: The standard as published does give the caveat that among the areas over which it does NOT apply is library applications and specifically descriptive cataloging. However, ASIST?s view is that more congruence with practices from librarianship, especially considering the theoretical work that the field has done towards issues such as bibliographic relationships and electronic resources, would greatly increase the potential impact of the standard moving forward Comment provided by Timothy Dickey If anyone else provided comments on Z39.29 that i forgot to include i apologize a few votes will be coming up soon - Ill be sending out a note about them shortly Mark From needleman_mark at yahoo.com Thu Jan 28 15:09:31 2016 From: needleman_mark at yahoo.com (Mark Needleman) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Asis-standards] Upcoming votes Message-ID: <1DA248C2-9860-4FB8-AFC6-ED8AB88A15A7@yahoo.com> Just a reminder about some upcoming votes - i believe i have already sent out the relevant documents but I?m attaching them again in case i forgot mark ??????????????????????????????????? ISO/FDIS 15489-1 (Ed 2) Information and documentation -- Records management -- Part 1: Concepts and principles Comments due by 2/1/2016 ISO/DIS 17068-Information and documentation - Trusted third party repository for digital records comments due by 2/2/2016 Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2009), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup This is a vote to withdraw the NISO adoption of ISO 12083 - the SGML standard - if NISO does with draw it it has no effect on the ISO standard - NISO voting members will still be able to vote on any changes to the ISO standard - the only difference is as a NISO standard all member organizations get 1 vote - as an ISO standard NISO gets one vote which is made taking into consideration the opinions of NISO voting members Comments due by 2/2/2016 -------------- next part -------------- Just a reminder about some upcoming votes - i believe i have already sent out the relevant documents but I?m attaching them again in case i forgot mark ??????????????????????????????????? ISO/FDIS 15489-1 (Ed 2) Information and documentation -- Records management -- Part 1: Concepts and principles Comments due by 2/1/2016 ISO/DIS 17068-Information and documentation - Trusted third party repository for digital records comments due by 2/2/2016 Periodic Review: ANSI/NISO/ISO 12083-1995 (R2009), Electronic Manuscript Preparation and Markup This is a vote to withdraw the NISO adoption of ISO 12083 - the SGML standard - if NISO does with draw it it has no effect on the ISO standard - NISO voting members will still be able to vote on any changes to the ISO standard - the only difference is as a NISO standard all member organizations get 1 vote - as an ISO standard NISO gets one vote which is made taking into consideration the opinions of NISO voting members Comments due by 2/2/2016 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ISO_DIS_17068(E)-Character_PDF_document.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1253944 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ISO_FDIS_15489-1_(E).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 408632 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part --------------