[Asis-standards] Upcoming vote - Part 2
TIMOTHY DICKEY
tdickey1 at kent.edu
Mon Jan 4 08:27:44 EST 2016
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 <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
> 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)Â 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 âlosingâ 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 âgeneric structureâ 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 â
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
More information about the Asis-standards
mailing list