[Asis-standards] ISO votes - 2nd email

[Baden Hughes]

Hi all

My comments below:

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

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

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

Duplicate of #1 in this list ?

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

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

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

I would tend to go with Abstain.

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Baden