ALCTS Liaisons and Representatives Report on 2010 Annual Activities in Washington, D.C.

Editor's note: The following reports were submitted by groups outside of ALCTS with whom we have formal liaisons.

Accessibility Assembly

Kevin Furniss, ALCTS Liaison

Much of the meeting was spent discussing the resolution below. Recommendations will be forwarded to Mike Marlin, Member, ASCLA/LSSPS Electronic Accessibility Committee. The resolution is about Electronic Content Access and Distribution Infrastructure, which could be described as the hardware, software, relationships and legal agreements that ensure very high quality and equitable access to electronic content through libraries.

A Resolution to Insure Equitable Access to All Formats of Electronic Content Through Libraries

Whereas, equity of access is a core value of the American Library Association; and Whereas, a core mission of libraries is to insure equity of access to information in all formats for all citizens through a system of resource sharing; and Whereas, the rapid evolution of technology is accelerating the transition of information from print to digital; and Whereas, current and emerging assistive technology now affords people with sensory and physical disabilities the opportunity to access electronic information hitherto inaccessible through libraries; and Whereas, restrictions to access and usage of digital content and devices are being imposed due to implementations of digital rights management (DRM) through technologies used by hardware manufacturers, publishers and copyright holders; and Whereas, equity of access is threatened by inadequate library funding and inadequate access to electronic content and distribution infrastructures; and Whereas, access to digital content in multimedia formats often requires access through libraries; and Whereas, the role of librarians and library resource sharing remains critical regardless of content format; and Whereas, the general public requires extensive digital content access through public libraries; teachers and students require extensive digital content access through school libraries; and students, faculty, and researchers require extensive digital content access through academic libraries; and Whereas, access to electronic government resources and documents are a core part of library services; and Whereas, unique local digital records and content are a critical part of the new model of electronic content access and distribution libraries must have access to; and Whereas, user-generated electronic content is an important part of the new model of electronic content access and distribution; and Whereas, community is core to library services, community engagement around electronic content is an essential part of the new model of electronic content access and distribution; and Whereas, libraries fulfill a unique and essential role through the stewardship of content and information, regardless of format; and Whereas, archives of digital electronic content via libraries is the best way to insure future access to said content; and Whereas, without libraries as intermediaries to commercial electronic content said content is controlled solely by for-profit organizations with no obligation to provide for and protect access should the commercial entity be either prohibitively expensive, difficult to access or cease to exist; now, therefore, be it Resolved that the American Library Association (ALA)

  1. recognizes that as content consumption and circulation shifts from physical print material to electronic content, libraries must have effective new electronic content access and distribution systems and infrastructure;
  2. calls for the development of a new generation of practical and effective collaborations that provide electronic content and distribution infrastructure for libraries;
  3. expects this infrastructure to include current and emerging assistive technology that now provides people with sensory and physical disabilities the opportunity to access electronic information hitherto inaccessible through libraries;
  4. encourages solutions for electronic content access via libraries that use formats and standards that work across device platforms are DRM-free whenever practically possible;
  5. calls for a compromise agreement between the library and publishing communities over accessing digital content; and
  6. calls for the formation of an ALA Presidential Task Force charged with
    1. studying the issue of electronic content and distribution infrastructure for libraries,
    2. developing a list of potentially practical, effective collaborations and courses of action that ALA and libraries around the country could engage in,
    3. drafting a policy for ALA to adopt that work towards and encourages the creation of an effective electronic content and distribution infrastructure for libraries, and
    4. submitting a report to Council at ALA annual conference in 2011.

Mover: Jackie Rafferty, MA Chapter Councilor, 617-538-9008, Marriott Metro Center Hotel Seconder: Larry Romans, Executive Board, 615-479-5440, Renaissance Hotel Co-author: Michael Porter, Incoming Councilor, 909-717-9451, Grand Hyatt Washington.

The other main items of business included accessible versions of American Libraries which are now available, and the availability of GIS systems to navigate the exhibits floor.

American Institute for Conservation (AIC)

Jennifer Hain Teper, ALCTS Liaison to AIC

No major actions for ALCTS came out of the AIC meeting at this time. However, there was a discussion about the future of education of book and paper conservators, particularly those working in libraries and how ALA may serve as a forum for future discussions. See: http://prescan.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/aic-2010-roundup-discussion-on-educating-library-conservators/. An informal discussion occurred at the ALCTS PARS Book and Paper Interest Group at the 2010 ALA Midwinter Meeting.

ALA Committee on Professional Ethics

Bradford Eden, ALCT Liaison

This group held two meetings at the 2010 ALA Annual Conference: Friday, June 25 and Monday, June 27. I was only able to attend the Friday afternoon meeting.

Most of the meeting was spent discussing this committee's program “Ethics in a Digital World: Professional Presence in Social Networking Spaces.” Other topics included twittering regarding the program, how to use ALA Connect more effectively, privacy concerns with open shelf holds (the committee will work with the Intellectual Freedom Committee on this), and the committee’s Ethics Education Initiative (the committee is working on a contract with ICG for training). There was also a short discussion on the laying off of school librarians, who are being replaced nationwide with support staff. Brainstorming for an ALA 2012 program was initiated.

ALA Membership Promotion Task Force

Deborah A. Ryszka, ALCTS Liaison

The ALA Membership Promotion Task Force meets during ALA conferences with the ALA Membership Committee. The ALA Membership Committee is composed of seventeen members and the Task Force has eighty-four members. Together these two groups promote membership in ALA and its divisions, round tables, etc.

John Chrastka, Director of Membership Development at ALA, reported on membership statistics for the organization. Total membership in the Association is up slightly, from 47,390 at the end of May 2009 to 47,602 at the end of May 2010.

Membership in ALCTS showed a slight decrease, down from 4,399 at the end of May in 2009 to 4,166 at the end of May in 2010. Other divisions in the Association showed similar decreases. The American Association of School Librarians (AASL) and the Public Library Association (PLA) increased their membership from 2009 to 2010.

Many of the round tables in the Association showed increases in their membership numbers, including the Exhibits Round Table (ERT), the International Relations Round Table (IRRT), the Library Support Staff Interest Round Table (LSSIRT), and the New Members Round Table (NMRT).

Since the 2010 ALA Midwinter Meeting, the ALA Membership Development Office and the ALA Web Editorial Board have completed a full redesign of the content and layout for the pages in the membership section of the ALA website. See http://www.ala.org/membership.

The Office also developed a new membership booklet entitled, “This is how we connect.” This booklet mirrors the new membership content on ALA’s web site and is designed to give information about the Association to non-members and new members.

The committee and Task Force spent considerable time discussing the recommendations issued in the recent report by the ALA Young Librarians Working Group. Two members of the Working Group were present to answer questions about the report and to provide more information about it.

Representatives from the ALA divisions and round tables ended the meeting by discussing specific strategies they are using to recruit and retain members.

Dewey Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee

Caroline Kent, Chair, Dewey Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee

Meeting 133 of the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) was held June 16-18 at the OCLC headquarters in Dublin, Ohio. This is the last face-to-face meeting before DDC 23 goes to press, so there was a very full agenda. Prior to Meeting 133, EPC held an electronic meeting 132A and approved these follow-up items to meeting 132:

  • Clarifications to the Editorial Rules regarding standard subdivisions
  • Changes in Table 1 relating to Maintenance and repair and Fund raising for festivals
  • Added notation in Table 2 for the places Karelia (in northern Europe) and Telangana (a new state in India)
  • Updates to Table 6 languages and the corresponding changes to Table 5 Ethnic and national groups
  • Expansion in the Agriculture schedule to accommodate reindeer farming
  • Updates to hats and other areas of Costume
  • Updates to the sports schedule, particularly Olympic sports and hockey
  • Updates to historical periods of African countries

At meeting 133, the EPC approved updates in the following tables:

  • In Table 1 (Standard Subdivisions), a proposal to revise the three internal add tables in light of the updated policy on standard subdivisions with extended or narrowed meanings, and displaced standard subdivisions (the policy itself was discussed at Meeting 132 and approved at Meeting 132A). EPC also reviewed and approved changes arising from application of the aforementioned policy in Table 3 (Subdivisions for the Arts, for Individual Literatures, for Specific Literary Forms); 368 Insurance; and 380 Commerce, Communications, Transportation
  • In Table 2 (Geographic Areas, Historical Periods, Persons), developments for Switzerland and Sweden, plus the name change of North-West Frontier Province to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan.
  • In Table 5 (Ethnic and National Groups) and Table 6 (Languages), updated provisions for Finnic and Saami peoples and languages. The interoperable expansion for Finnic peoples and languages prepared for inclusion in the Norwegian and Swedish translations sparked a lively discussion about the role of the English-language print edition in setting the notational framework for the standard version of the DDC. EPC will explore this topic in depth at Meeting 134.

EPC also approved selected updates in the following schedules:

  • 004-006 Computer science: provisions for new and emerging topics, including bar coding, RFID, and smart cards, cyberinfrastructure, netbooks, cloud computing, computational intelligence, augmented reality, and Web 2.0;
  • 281 Eastern churches (and changes related to Orthodox Christianity elsewhere in 200 Religion);
  • 364.1 Criminal offenses for terrorism, which allows for a built number in the Law schedule;
  • 640 Home and family management;
  • 796 Athletic and outdoor sports and games (specifically skiing and snowboarding, pole vaulting);
  • 900 History, geography, and related disciplines. In the last, EPC approved changes to the history of the ancient world, the history of Sweden, and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. EPC discussed the following schedules, but delayed action on them until Meeting 133A, as planned:
  • Add tables in 398 Folklore and 900 History, geography, and related disciplines (ripple effects from the updates to Table 1 and the Editorial Rules);
  • Geographic subdivisions of Germany and neighboring countries and Turkey in the ancient and modern world;
  • Historical periods of Indonesia and Africa, and countries whose historical periods are represented by decades;
  • 340 Law;
  • 370 Education;
  • 390 Customs, etiquette, folklore;
  • 660 Chemical engineering and related technologies.

The full versions of Table 2 (Geographic Areas, Historical Periods, Persons); 800 Literature; and 900 History, geography, and related disciplines also will be considered at Meeting 133A. Several discussion papers were considered by the committee. In addition to ones informing the proposed developments in 340 Law and 370 Education, the committee considered a proposed update to historical periods and Hadith in 297 Islam, Babism, Bahai Faith. A full expansion of Islam is planned for 200 Religion Class later next year after the publication of DDC 23 in print. Because the proposed revision for Hadith uses the revised historical periods and includes a relocation of Hadith from 297.124 to 297.125 with a significant revision and expansion under the latter number, the editors thought it best to speed review and approval of this portion of the 297 expansion for inclusion in the print version of DDC 23.

EPC approved posting of the discussion paper on the Dewey web site for worldwide review with comments requested by August 1, 2010. The paper should be available before the end of June 2010 on the discussion page of the Dewey web site.

The committee heard presentations on ongoing and upcoming translations of the DDC, DDC research, Dewey in Semantic Web representations, Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), and Dewey marketing and advertising, and saw demonstrations of the new Editorial Support System and WebDewey 2.0.

Two electronic meetings have been scheduled to follow up on exhibits discussed but not voted on, or issues raised, at meeting 133. Meeting 133A will take place in July-August 2010 and meeting 133B in September 2010. There will be no meeting in November 2010. Meeting 134 will take place at OCLC in June 2011. It is expected to focus on the abridged edition and the 200 Religion separate edition.

Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF)

Kay Cassell, ALCTS Liaison

The Freedom to Read Foundation participated as amicus curiae in the U.S. versus Stevens case. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law in this case on April 20, 2010 declining the government's invitation to establish a new test for identifying unprotected speech. In American Booksellers' Foundation for Free Expression versus Strickland, the FTRF successfully challenged an Ohio statute that classified profanity, violence, cruelty and glorification of crime as obscenity for minors and then made it a crime to disseminate those materials on the Internet. In the Sarah Bradburn et al. versus North Central Regional Library District, the Washington State Supreme Court concluded that the library's filtering policy did not violate the Washington State Constitution. The lawsuit will be returned to the federal district court, which will decide the constitutional issues raised by the lawsuit. The Judith F. Krug Fund will award two grants to fund local Banned Books Week Read-Outs. Individuals and libraries are encouraged to join the Freedom to Read Foundation.

Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA

John Attig, ALA Representative, JSC for Development of RDA

RDA: Resource Description and Access was published on June 23, 2007. There were some compromises on ALA’s internal deadline in order to do some last-minute work on display of non-Roman characters and on search defaults and result lists. The release is the culmination of a lot of work by everyone involved. During the CC:DA meeting on June 28, 2010 there was a brief celebration (with cake!) to thank some of the many people who contributed to RDA content over the years. Pictures of the event are available at: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ccdacelebration.

Since the 2010 ALA Midwinter Meeting, the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) completed two rounds of review of the text of RDA, checking all the changes made since June 2009, reporting bugs (using a Bugzilla database to track bug reports and fixes). The JSC also commented on the layout and functionality of the RDA Toolkit. ALA Publishing and their contractors made significant improvements in all these areas. Although there continue to be open bug reports that are still being handled, the overall product is something of which we can be proud.

In addition to the review of the text of RDA, the JSC worked on various tools and related documents. The revised MARC 21 mappings are now included in the Toolkit. A set of complete examples is available JSC web site. ALA submitted about half a dozen additional examples to cover categories of bibliographic and authority records not yet covered (contributed by members of the Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC) and MAGERT, and Adam Schiff); these additional examples are being reviewed by the JSC and will be posted when they have been approved.

JSC has begun consideration of revisions to RDA. ALA reviewed the JSC’s “List of Issues Deferred until after the First Release of RDA” at Midwinter and Attig forwarded their decisions to the JSC. The other constituencies have since forwarded similar documents. Now that RDA has been released, the JSC can get organized to begin work on revision proposals.

The JSC is operating on the assumption that the revision process for RDA will be similar to that for AACR2: proposals will be submitted from one of the JSC constituencies or will be sent directly to the Chair. The JSC constituencies will respond formally to each proposal. The JSC will consider and approve any changes to RDA resulting from the proposals. The Committee of Principals has considering different models for the future governance of RDA, and there may be some changes in JSC membership or procedures. Until specific decisions are made, the JSC will be moving forward based on its former (pre- RDA) procedures.

The next JSC meeting has tentatively been scheduled for May 2011 in Glasgow, Scotland. New proposals for revision of RDA are due two months before the meeting. This allows ALA to consider revision proposals at the 2011 Midwinter Meeting, with a brief time for the proposals to be finalized after the meeting before being submitted to the JSC. This means that any proposals that are to be considered by the JSC at the May 2011 meeting must be circulated to CC:DA in advance of Midwinter. Given the early date for Midwinter and the usual holiday hiatus, this means mid-December. Once the precise dates of the JSC meeting have been set, a detailed CC:DA Program of Work will be established.

The JSC is likely to give priority to proposals (most likely from the Library of Congress) dealing with issues that arose during the U.S. RDA testing period. There is thus no urgency in developing proposals dealing with deferred issues. However, any proposals that are ready will be considered.

There are two different processes involved in generating proposals from ALA. Several of the groups represented on CC:DA have indicated an interest in working on particular issues. The American Association of Law Libraries has submitted a proposal. The Music Library Association and OLAC will be working on issues involving sources of information for sound recordings and titles/access points for musical works and expressions. A number of issues have been referred to other groups.

CC:DA identified three priority issues, and at the 2010 ALA Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., agreed to form two task forces to prepare proposals. These issues are:

  • The instructions for corporate hierarchies, particularly the two different sets of instructions for governmental and non-governmental bodies.
  • The differing instructions for names of heads of state and heads of government, particularly the choice of language; also assigned to this Task Force is a proposal to supply a missing instruction for names of ruling executive bodies.

In addition, Attig raised an issue that arose during the preparation of the complete examples, involving the instructions for accompanying material; he may ask CC:DA to work on a proposal dealing with this issue.

It is anticipated that CC:DA’s work will once again increase in volume. The committee discussed various techniques for managing the work, including the creation of a detailed Program of Work giving timelines for action, and the possible formation of a steering committee of experienced members to advice the Chair on matters of scheduling, priorities, etc.

NISO Liaison Report

Cindy Hepfer, ALA Voting Representative to NISO

As of the end of the 2010 ALA Annual Conference, I have one year left in my second term as the ALA Voting Representative to NISO. A new ALA Voting Representative will need to be appointed in the spring of 2011. Any ALCTS member who is interested in filling the role is urged to contact ALCTS Vice President/President Elect Betsy Simpson. Please also feel free to contact me for information about what the position entails.

In order to keep the ALCTS membership informed, I still continue to distribute information about NISO activities, and the organization’s monthly newsletter, to the ALCTS Leaders List. I also distribute notifications regarding NISO and ISO standards ballots to chairs of ALA committees which include information standards in their charges, and to other interested individuals who subscribed to list niso@ala.org. One of the members of that discussion list, Diane Hillmann, posts the ballot information that I distribute to niso@ala.org to the Standards Watch section of the LITA blog at http://litablog.org/category/standards/ and I wish to thank her once again for helping me keep ALA members, and others in the information chain who read the LITA blog, informed. The niso@ala.org list and the LITA blog both represent opportunities for ALA members to keep in touch with ongoing information standards work and to have the chance to offer pertinent comments related to votes. Finally, this semi-annual ANO column provides an overview of relevant activity.

Standards Activity Jan. 1–June 30, 2010

Brief descriptions of NISO and ISO ballots handled during the past six months are provided below. As is usually the case, I received little feedback from ALA members about any of the standards, although copies of a few ISO documents were requested by ALA members in order to review them and to have the opportunity to provide knowledgeable comments.

Other library-related groups represented in the voting pool include the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Society for Information Science and Technology, the Association of Jewish Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Bibliographical Center for Research, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Medical Library Association, the Music Library Association, the Society of American Archivists, and the Special Library Association Specific libraries, federal offices, or library consortia that are voting members include: Armed Forces Medical Library, California Digital Library, the College Center for Library Automation, the DAISY Consortium, the Library of Congress, Los Alamos National Laboratory, MINITEX, the National Agricultural Library, the National Library of Medicine, the Triangle Research Libraries Network and the U.S. Government Printing Office. The majority of the rest of the voting members are commercial entities: publishers, systems vendors, subscription agencies, etc.

NISO Standards

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.84-2005, Syntax for the Digital Object Identifier (the DOI)

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, NSI/NISO Z39.84-2005, Syntax for the Digital Object Identifier. In accordance with NISO procedures, all review ballots are accompanied by a recommendation from the responsible leadership committee, and NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommended a vote of reaffirm.

The recommendation was made based on current activity related to this standard. At the time, the whole DOI system (syntax, resolution, metadata, and unifying infrastructures) was proceeding through ISO, with an expected publication in 2010. Following reaffirmation and upon finalization of the ISO effort, the Topic Committee indicated that it would be studying the standard more closely to determine if revision might be needed for Z39.84. Feedback from the Z39.84 Maintenance Agency (the International DOI Foundation) regarding some changes needed to the standard had already been received. Voting members were encouraged to provide comments with their votes that might provide the TC with additional information regarding needs for a revision or about current use of the standard. A revision can begin at any time following the reaffirmation of the current standard.

We were members of the voting pool and were required to vote on the ballot. The voting options were:

  • Reaffirm (minor editorial corrections may be included in the reaffirmed standard)
  • Withdraw—comments are required (if withdrawal is indicated, the standard is removed from the list of approved NISO standards but remains available as a withdrawn standard for five (5) years. “Withdraw” votes are considered negative votes, i.e., a vote to not reaffirm)
  • Abstain (it is expected that all members of a Voting Pool vote; however, if the Voting Member feels that, despite originally joining the Voting Pool with the intention to vote, s/he can no longer record a voting position, the Member may choose to “Abstain” but provide the reason(s) for abstaining—possible reasons include a perceived conflict of interest, the inability to reach internal consensus, or a lack of expertise to evaluate areas addressed by the draft)

Voting deadline: initially January 13, 2010; later extended to February 1, 2010.

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm

Voting summary: 67 percent of eligible companies voted, 100 percent to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005, Bibliographic References

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005, Bibliographic References. The recommendation from the responsible leadership committee within NISO, NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee, was to reaffirm. The recommendation was made based on current use of this standard; in addition, this was a revision of an earlier standard, and the Topic Committee had not been received information regarding need for further revision.

The voting options were:

  • Reaffirm
  • Withdraw (comments required)
  • Abstain

Voting deadline: initially January 13, 2010; later extended to February 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm

Voting summary: 63 percent of eligible companies voted, 100 percent to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005, Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005, Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. The recommendation from the responsible leadership committee, the Topic Committee, was to reaffirm. This recommendation was made based on feedback of current use of this standard; the openness and availability of NISO standards; and because of the current activity in this area, particularly as relates to interoperability, with SKOS, and at the ISO level. At the ISO level, this standard relates to ISO 2788, Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri. There is also ISO 5864, Documentation—Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri. There is currently work underway to merge these two standards into a new revised ISO standard, ISO 25964-1, Information and documentation—Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies—Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval. The latter was at DIS ballot and slated to close March 26, 2010. A part 2 was also being developed, Information and documentation—Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies—Part 2: Interoperability with other vocabularies.

The voting options were:

  • Reaffirm
  • Withdraw (comments required)
  • Abstain

Voting deadline: initially January 13, 2010; later extended to February 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm

Voting summary: 61 percent of eligible companies voted, 100 percent to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.18-2005, Scientific and Technical Reports—Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.18-2005, Scientific and Technical Reports—Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation. The recommendation from the responsible leadership committee, NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee, was to reaffirm. This recommendation was made based on feedback of current use of this standard. Comments were encouraged.

The voting options were:

  • Reaffirm
  • Withdraw (comments required)
  • Abstain

Voting deadline: initially January 13, 2010; later extended to February 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm

Voting summary: 64 percent of eligible companies voted, 100 percent to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.88-2004, The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.88-2004, The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services. The recommendation from the responsible leadership committee, NISO's Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee, was to reaffirm. The recommendation was made based on feedback of current use of the standard. Comments were encouraged.

The voting options were:

  • Reaffirm
  • Withdraw (comments required)
  • Abstain

Voting deadline: initially January 13, 2010; later extended to February 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm

Voting summary: 78 percent of eligible companies voted, 100 percent to reaffirm

Ballot title: Standard Periodic Reaffirmation Reviews: Formation of Voting Pools

In accordance with NISO procedures, we were offered the option of joining the voting pools for four NISO standards that were due for their periodic reviews. All four standards are under the responsibility of the Content and Collection Management (CCM) Topic Committee. This was NOT the reaffirmation ballot—it was only to form the voting pools.

We were instructed to select the standards that we would like to vote on behalf of our organizations when the reaffirmation review ballot was issued. Joining the voting pool allow voting reps to vote on the standard that is up for review and provide comments. Once the voting pools have been formed, separate ballots for each standard will be issued only to those who have joined the pool. If voting reps do not join the voting pool for a particular standard, they in essence abstain from any decision made regarding this standard's reaffirmation ballot.

NISO needs at least 15 percent of the voting membership to join the pool for each standard. If less than 15 percent express interest in the standard, it may be considered by the Board for administrative withdrawal.

The four standards in this voting pool ballot are listed below with the URL to each of their descriptive web pages. Those pages also have a link to the PDF full text.

Voting deadline: April 14, 2010

Result: ALA elected to join all four voting pools since all seem relevant for some aspect of ALA activity. In the order presented above, the percent of voting members who expressed an interest in the standard is: 30 percent, 24 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent; 8 percent of voting members abstained from all of the pools.

Since less than 15 percent of the membership expressed interest in the Library Binding standard, I wrote Todd Carpenter and Karen Wetzel at NISO to see what this would mean for the standard. Karen’s reply indicated that lacking the 15 percent needed to start the review, the procedures at http://www.niso.org/about/documents states: “7.5.4 If for any standard less than fifteen percent (15 percent) of the Voting Members join the initial Voting Pool for review within forty-five (45) days…” Karen will be alerting the managing Topic Committee that this bar has not been reached, however, and they may see if there could be another option—for instance, recommend that it be put out as a stabilized standard, and re-ballot the item. This has been the case with a couple of previous standards that were in this position (the ballots are still being created). They may, however, choose to send this to the Board with a recommendation, as is stated in the procedures. At the time I am submitting this report, I have nothing newer to report about this standard, which I assume is of interest to at least some ALCTS members.

ISO Standards

Ballot title: AFNOR Appeal of ISO/DIS 26324, Digital object identifer system

This ballot was to obtain a U.S. position on the question: “Do you support the AFNOR appeal [for ISO/DIS 26324, Digital object identifier system] based on the information provided in document ISO/TC 46 N2232?” AFNOR is the French standards body, the equivalent to ANSI in the U.S.

Ballot options were: Yes (support the appeal); No (do not support the appeal); or Abstain. NISO recommended a NO vote on this ballot.

Relevant reference documents relevant were provided, including:

  • N2333—TC46 Secretariat's transmittal of the ballot asking the question regarding support for the AFNOR appeal
  • N2224—the original AFNOR appeal request
  • N2331—the SC9 Secretariat and DOI working group convener’s response to the AFNOR appeal
  • N2332—AFNOR's supplemental materials for the appeal, submitted following the response from the SC9 Secretariat and DOI working group convener

Voting deadline: January 13, 2010

Result: ALA voted no

Voting summary: 41 percent of eligible voting members voted, and 96 percent which did not abstain voted no

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 24619, Persistent identification and access in language technology applications

This was a draft international standard ballot from the liaison committee TC37/SC4 (Terminology and other language and content resources / Language resource management) for ISO/DIS 24619, Language resource management—Persistent identification and access in language technology applications. This would be the first edition.

The scope of this International Standard was to present requirements when including resolvable persistent identifiers (PID) with references to and citations of language resources in documents as well as in language resources themselves. This standard addressed issues of persistence and granularity of references to resources, by first requiring that persistent references be implemented by using a PID framework and further imposing requirements on any PID frameworks used for this purpose. The standard made reference to ISO 690-2 (bibliographic citations for electronic resources), which was in the process of revision and merger with 690-1. The standard at ballot also mentioned its relationship to DOI, ARK, and PURL (among others). Indication was that the ISO DOI System standard would be issued for a DIS ballot shortly.

For the purposes of reviewing the standard at ballot (and only for that purpose), voting members are told that they may see the draft versions of the new ISO 690 standard and the DOI system standard using the links below. They are asked not to share or distribute copies of these drafts to anyone else as they have not yet been officially distributed by ISO for ballot because ISO standards, including drafts, are copyrighted. However permission is granted by NISO to reproduce the balloted standard for the purpose of review and comment related to the preparation of a U.S. position, provided that notice is included. All other rights are reserved. I will forward copies of ISO documents to individuals who confirm membership in ALA and who write me asking to see them.

Since this was a liaison ballot, NISO provides only a vote "recommendation" and comments. The U.S. vote is submitted by ASTM International, the U.S. administrator for TC37.

Ballot options were: Yes; No; or Abstain.

Voting deadline: January 19, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 44 percent of eligible voting members voted, and 94 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 690, Information and documentation—Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources

This ballot was for the final draft standard, ISO/FDIS 690, Information and documentation—Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources. It gave guidelines for the preparation of bibliographic references. It was applicable to bibliographic references and citations to all kinds of information resources, including but not limited to monographs, serials, contributions, patents, cartographic materials, electronic information resources (including computer software and databases), music, recorded sound, prints, photographs, graphic and audiovisual works, and moving images. It was not applicable to machine-parsable citations or to legal citations, which have their own standards. This was the third edition of the standard merging and revised ISO 690:1987 and ISO 690-2:1997.

There were quite a few edits made between the previous draft and this one to address comments and particularly for consistency (especially in examples). Most of these were editorial, rather than substantive in nature.

It was noted that when Voting Representatives vote and comment, we should keep in mind that at this final stage a "Yes" vote can only have editorial, non-substantive comments. If a sufficient number of Yes votes are obtained, the standard will proceed to publication.

Voting deadline: January 22, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 44 percent of eligible voting members voted, and 91 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 26324, Digital object identifier system

This ballot was for the Draft International Standards, ISO/DIS 26324, Information and documentation—Digital object identifier system. It specified the syntax, description and resolution functional components of the digital object identifier (DOI®) system and the general principles for the creation, registration and administration of DOI names. This standard also described how the DOI system can be used with existing ISO identification systems, including the provision of additional functionality (such as resolution) where this is not already available. NISO indicated that it might be our last opportunity to make substantive comments to this standard. If there is 100 percent approval, the standard could go directly to publication.

Ballot options were: Yes; No; or Abstain.

Voting deadline: February 19, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 51 percent of eligible voting members voted, and 97 percent which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Systematic Review ISO 10754:1996, Extension of the Cyrillic alphabet coded character set

This was a systematic review ballot for the published standard, ISO 10754:1996, Information and documentation—Extension of the Cyrillic alphabet coded character set for non-Slavic languages for bibliographic information interchange. It was version three of the standard that specifies a set of 93 graphic characters with their coded representations. It consisted of a code table and a legend showing each graphic, its use and its name. Explanatory notes were also included. The character set is primarily intended for the interchange of information among data processing systems and within message transmission systems.

Vote options were Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for all votes other than Confirm.

Voting deadline: March 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 45 percent of eligible voting members voted, and 90 percent which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: ISO 3166-1:2006, Country codes

This was a systematic review ballot for the published standard, ISO 3166-1:2006, Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions—Part 1: Country codes. This part of ISO 3166 established codes that represent the current names of countries, dependencies, and other areas of particular geopolitical interest, on the basis of lists of country names obtained from the United Nations. It was intended for use in any application requiring the expression of current country names in coded form; it also includes basic guidelines for its implementation and maintenance.

Vote options were Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for all votes other than Confirm.

NISO included an important note: This standard is managed differently from other ISO standards due to the ongoing changes to or additions of country codes. The maintenance agency regularly issues a newsletter with new or changed codes. Those codes are added to the standard's country code database and become usable when the newsletter is issued. So it is not necessary to revise the standard just to incorporate those new codes. The main reason for voting for a revision would be if the "principles" for establishing the codes, as defined in the standard, need to be changed or updated. A corrigendum (correction supplement) for the standard was included as a reference to the ballot. If the standard were to be revised, these corrections would be merged to the revision.

Voting deadline: March 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 48 percent of eligible voting members voted, and 97 percent which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Systematic Review IS0 11108:1996, Archival paper—Requirements for permanence and durability

This was a systematic review ballot for the published standard, IS0 11108:1996, Information and documentation—Archival paper—Requirements for permanence and durability.

This International Standard specified the requirements for archival paper. It was applicable to unprinted papers intended for documents and publications required for permanent retention and frequent use. For these documents and publications, paper of high permanence and high durability is required.

Vote options were Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for all votes other than Confirm.

Voting deadline: March 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 52 percent of eligible voting members voted, and 100 percent which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Systematic Review IS0 9706:1994, Paper for documents—Requirements for permanence

This was a systematic review ballot for the published standard, IS0 9706:1994, Information and documentation—Paper for documents—Requirements for permanence. The purpose of this International Standard was to provide a means of specifying and identifying paper that, according to the present state of knowledge, has a high degree of permanence and is likely to undergo little or no change in properties that influence readability and handling when stored in a protected environment for long periods of time.

Vote options were Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for all votes other than Confirm.

Voting deadline: March 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 51 percent of eligible voters voted, and 100 percent which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Systematic Review IS0 9984:1996, Transliteration of Georgian characters into Latin characters

This was a systematic review ballot for the published standard, IS0 9984:1996, Information and documentation—Transliteration of Georgian characters into Latin characters. This International Standard established a system for the transliteration of Georgian characters into Latin characters in accordance with the principles of stringent conversion in order to permit international information exchange, particularly by electronic means.

Vote options were Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for all votes other than Confirm.

Voting deadline: March 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 47 percent of eligible voters voted, and 100 percent which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Systematic Review ISO 233-3:1999, Transliteration of Persian characters into Latin characters

This was a systematic review ballot for the published standard, ISO 233-3:1999, Information and documentation—Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters—Part 3: Persian language—Simplified transliteration. This part of ISO 233 established a simplified system for the transliteration of Persian characters into Latin characters. This simplification of the stringent rules established by ISO 233:1984 is especially intended to facilitate the processing of bibliographic information (e.g. catalogues, indices, citations, etc.).

Vote options were Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for all votes other than Confirm.

Voting deadline: March 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 45 percent of eligible voters voted, and 100 percent which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 27729, Information and documentation—International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI)

This ballot was for the Draft International Standard ISO/DIS 27729, Information and documentation—International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI), which specified the International Standard name identifier (ISNI) for the identification of public identities of parties—the identities used publicly by parties involved throughout the media content industries in the creation, production, management, and content distribution chains. This was probably going to be our last opportunity to make substantive comments to this standard. If the standard received 100 percent approval, it could go directly to publication.

Voting options were: Yes, No, and Abstain.

Voting deadline: March 2, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 41 percent of eligible voters voted, and 100 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 25964-1, Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies—Part 1

This ballot was for approval of the Draft International Standard ISO/DIS 25964-1, Information and documentation—Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies—Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval (Revision of ISO 2788:1986 and of ISO 5964:1985). This part of ISO 25964 gave recommendations for the development and maintenance of thesauri intended for information retrieval applications. The document also provided a data model and recommended format for import and export of thesaurus data. This part of this International Standard applied to monolingual and multilingual thesauri. NISO indicated that this vote might be our last opportunity to make substantive comments to this standard. If there was 100 percent approval, the standard could go directly to publication.

Voting options were: Yes, No, and Abstain.

Voting deadline: March 12, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 40 percent of eligible voters voted, and 100 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/IEC/WD 27037—Guidelines for identification, collection and/or acquisition and preservation of digital evidence

This was a very short turn-around ballot and was for comments only.

TC46/SC11 had formed a liaison with ISO/IEC JTC1/SC27 for the development of the standard ISO/IEC 27037—Guidelines for identification, collection and/or acquisition and preservation of digital evidence. The Working Group had issued a second working draft for comments, and our only options for this ballot were:

  • Comments have been submitted
  • Abstain

Voting deadline: March 26, 2010 (ballot was issued March 12)

Result: ALA abstained

Voting summary: 15 percent of eligible voters voted, and 100 percent abstained

Ballot title: Change the scope of ISO TC46/SC11/WG11—Risk identification and management for records

This was another very short turn-around ballot regarding a change in scope for the TC46/SC11 working group on "Risk identification and management for records". The committee resolved to make this change at its meeting in October 2009 in Orlando, Florida because the project, ISO 13069 (N874) did not address the specific needs of the recordkeeping industry. The new scope, and the new standards proposed, fit better with the Management Systems for Records series of standards.

NISO indicated that the earlier draft for this project was using the DRAMBORA repository audit method as the basis for the standard and that it received a number of comments that the working draft was too repository-oriented and not records-oriented. This was one of the issues that the committee was trying to address in re-working the scope and starting fresh. The scope of the newly-defined project was in the document numbered N1022 that is referenced with this ballot.

Ballot choices were:

  • Yes—agree to new scope
  • No—do not agree to new scope
  • Abstain

It was noted that there were no U.S. representatives currently identified for the working group and that if anyone was interested in participating or would like to nominate someone, the voting representative could indicate that in comments and provide full contact information for the nominee.

Voting deadline: March 26, 2010 (ballot was issued March 12)

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 20 percent of eligible voters voted, 100 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 24616, Linguistic resources management—Multilingual information framework

This was a liaison ballot for ISO/DIS 24616, Linguistic resources management—Multilingual information framework. The standard described a metamodel and data categories for a multilingual information framework (MLIF) that provides a generic platform for modeling and managing multilingual information in various domains: localization, translation, multimedia, document management, digital library, and information or business modeling applications. MLIF provides a metamodel and a set of generic data categories for various application domains. MLIF also provides strategies for the interoperability and/or linking of models including, but not limited to: XLIFF, TMX, SMILText and ITS.

This was a ballot for a standard developed by the ISO subcommittee on language resource management (TC37/SC4). As a liaison to this committee, NISO could only recommend a vote and supply comments. The U.S. vote on this standard will be submitted by ASTM International, the U.S. administrator for this committee.

Voting options were: yes, no, abstain.

Voting deadline: April 16, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 40 percent of eligible voters voted, 100 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Request for comment to change the ISO/TC 46/SC 11 Archives/Records management scope

This was a short turn-around ballot to solicit comments on a proposed new scope for the Archives/Records Management subcommittee (SC11) of TC46, not a ballot to approve the scope. The proposed scope document was available from the ballot webpage or the link provided in this email. Although discussion of the scope change was not explicitly called out (yet) on the draft agenda for the SC11 meeting in May 2010 in Korea, it was expected that that would happen and that a vote might be taken on whether to approve the scope change at that meeting. Voting members were encouraged to provide any comments at this time as there might not be another opportunity to do so.

Vote options were:

  • Comments have been submitted
  • Abstain

Voting deadline: April 19, 2010 (ballot was issued Mar. 31)

Result: ALA voted to abstain

Voting summary: 30 percent of eligible voters voted, all voted to abstain

Ballot title: Liaison New Work Item proposal ISO/NP 14641-1, Electronic archiving—Specifications concerning the design and the operation of an information system for electronic information preservation

This was a short turn-around ballot to provide comments for a liaison new work item proposal from TC171, Document management applications, SC3, General issues. A working draft/outline was included with the proposal. This proposal was to develop a standard providing a set of technical specifications and organizational policies to be implemented for capture, archival and access of Electronically Stored Information (ESI), ensuring legibility, integrity and traceability of this information for the duration of their preservation and use. This standard was said to be applicable to permanent archives and therefore did not refer to systems in which users have the ability to substitute or alter ESI after capture.

Voting options were: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: May 18, 2010 (ballot was issued April 13)

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 40 percent of eligible voters voted, 67 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 16175-1, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 1: Overview and statement of principles

This was a Fast Track ballot for: ISO/DIS 16175-1, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 1: Overview and statement of principles.

Fast track ballots are used to create an ISO standard from an existing standard, in this case the International Council on Archives and the Australasian Digital Recordkeeping Initiative standard of the same title. Fast track standards are submitted for their first ballot at the enquiry (DIS) stage; if there are no negative votes, the standard can proceed directly to publication. Thus NISO indicated that this might be our only opportunity to review and vote on this standard.

Voting options were: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: May 24, 2010 (ballot was issued January 19)

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 37 percent of eligible voters voted, 92 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 16175-2, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 2: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments

This is a Fast Track ballot for ISO/DIS 16175-2, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 2: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments

Fast track ballots are used to create an ISO standard from an existing standard, in this case the International Council on Archives and the Australasian Digital Recordkeeping Initiative standard of the same title. Fast track standards are submitted for their first ballot at the enquiry (DIS) stage; if there are no negative votes, the standard can proceed directly to publication. Thus NISO pointed out that this might be our only opportunity to review and vote on this standard.

Voting options were: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: May 24, 2010 (ballot was issued January 19)

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 36 percent of eligible voters voted, 92 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 16175-3, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 3: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in business systems

This was a Fast Track ballot for: ISO/DIS 16175-3, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 3: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in business systems. Fast track ballots are used to create an ISO standard from an existing standard, in this case the International Council on Archives and the Australasian Digital Recordkeeping Initiative standard of the same title. Fast track standards are submitted for their first ballot at the enquiry (DIS) stage; if there are no negative votes, the standard can proceed directly to publication. Thus NISO indicated that this might be our only opportunity to review and vote on this standard.

Voting options were: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: May 24, 2010 (ballot was issued January 19)

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 37 percent of eligible voters voted, 90 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Liaison ballot for ISO/FDIS 29383, Terminology policies—Development and implementation

This was a liaison ballot from ISO/TC 37, Terminology and other language and content resources, Subcommittee SC 1, Principles and methods. This International Standard provides policy makers in governments, administration, nonprofit and commercial organizations with guidelines and a methodology for the development and implementation of a comprehensive policy or strategy concerning the planning and management of terminology. The standard was designed for policy makers working in different environments, from language planning to for-profit companies.

Since this was a liaison ballot, NISO could only "recommend" a U.S. vote and provide comments. The actual vote will be submitted by ASTM International, the U.S. TAG Administrator for TC37/SC3.

Voting options were: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: May 25, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 31 percent of eligible voters voted, and 88 percent which did not abstain voted yes. The one no vote came from the Medical Library Association voting representative, who provided extensive feedback.

Ballot title: ISO/CD 22274, Systems to manage terminology, knowledge and content—Internationalization and concept-related aspects of classification systems

This ballot is for the TC37/SC3 liaison standard, ISO/CD 22274, Systems to manage terminology, knowledge and content—Internationalization and concept-related aspects of classification systems.

The standard provides generic advice on how to create content of classification systems and how to express that content in multilingual environments. It primarily specifies the factors that need to be considered when creating and populating a classification system that will be used in diverse linguistic environments. These factors include the specification of principles for incorporating internationalization aspects into classification systems, and maintaining and using those aspects for the structuring of activities, products, services, agents, and other entities of a company or organization.

Since this is a liaison ballot, NISO can only "recommend" a U.S. vote and provide comments. The actual vote will be submitted by ASTM International, the U.S. TAG Administrator for TC37/SC3.

Voting options were: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: June 17, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 36 percent of eligible voters voted, and 93 percent which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Approval of IDF as the ISO 26324 (DOI) Registration Authority

This is a short turn-around ballot to approve the International DOI Foundation (IDF) as the ISO 26324 Registration Authority. (See http://www.doi.org/ for more information on IDF.)

The international standard, ISO 26324, Digital object identifier system, is currently being processed for a two month Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) ballot. Before the standard is finalized and published, a Registration Authority must be in place. TC46/SC9 authorized a ballot to appoint the IDF as the Registration Authority at their 2009 meeting in Nairobi. (SC9/N524 Resolution #2.) Included with this ballot is Annex C from the draft standard, which defines the responsibilities of the Registration Authority (RA).

Vote options are: Yes (approve IDF as the RA), No (do not approve), Abstain (from voting).

Voting deadline: June 23, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 39 percent of eligible voters voted, and 100 percent which did not abstain voted yes

ISO Standards with Voting in Progress

Ballot title: TC46/SC9 New Work Item Proposal Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies—Part 2: Interoperability with other vocabularies

This ballot is to approve a new work item for Part 2 of ISO 25964, which will deal with thesauri and other types of vocabulary that are commonly used for information retrieval. Part 1 of ISO 25964 is a merger and revision of two existing ISO standards—ISO 2788, Documentation—Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri, and ISO 5964, Documentation—Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri. The whole of Part 2 will cover new ground not previously covered in any international standard. A working draft of Part 2 is included with the proposal.

It is proposed that the same working group currently developing Part 1 will also develop Part 2. (They are the developers of the working draft.) The U.S. representative on that working group is Marcia Zeng. If anyone would like to nominate someone else to also work on the project, please include the name and contact information in your comments.

Voting options are Yes (approve the new work item), No (do not believe the new work item should proceed), or Abstain. Comments are required for No votes.

Voting deadline: July 16, 2010 (deadline for comments to me is July 9)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Liaison ballot for New Work Item proposal for Language resources management—Segmentation Rules eXchange (SRX)

This ballot is for a new work item proposal to develop a standard on Language resources management—Segmentation Rules eXchange (SRX). SRX defines an XML formalism for describing how language-processing tools segment text (e.g., into sentences or paragraphs) based on a series of sequentially applied pattern (regular expression)-based rules. In addition to enhancing interoperability between tools such as computer-aided translation, SRX would also allow the definition of standard language- or country-specific rules.

NISO Note: Although not explicitly called out in the proposal, this standard could potentially be useful in Knowledge Organization Systems (classification, thesaurus, ontology) work, for example, interoperability between multilingual thesauri.

This is a liaison ballot from TC37 Terminology and other language and content resources / SC4 Language resource management. Therefore NISO can only submit a vote recommendation and any comments. The U.S. vote will be submitted by ASTM International.

NISO can, however, nominate an expert to work on this project (if approved). If there is interest in applying this standard to Knowledge Organization Systems, it is strongly recommended that someone from the NISO community participate in the standard's development, as it is unlikely that the experts coming from the TC37 community will have an understanding of that viewpoint. If ALA wishes to nominate an expert, I am to provide the name and contact information in my comments.

Voting options are: Yes (agree this should be a new project); No (do not believe this is a worthwhile project to pursue); Abstain.

Voting deadline: July 26, 2010 (deadline for comments to me is July 19)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Approve new work item to revise ISO 11620, Library performance indicators

This ballot is to approve a new project to revise ISO 11620:2008, Information and documentation—Library performance indicators.

The revision is proposed due to recent updates in related standards, both nationally and internationally, and to address new developments in digital library services. The proposal and justification for this project are in a document that is available for download from the ballot webpage.

If NISO votes to approve this standard, it needs to identify a U.S. expert for the working group. If anyone would like to participate on this project or nominate someone to participate, I can include the name and contact information in my comments.

Voting deadline: August 13, 2010 (deadline for comments to me is August 6)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Approve new work item for Methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries

This ballot is to approve a new project to develop a new TC46/SC8 standard on Methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries.

The proposed standard is intended to complement the existing set of standards for statistics and quality measures in libraries and information services. The intent is to define and describe methods for assessing and measuring the impact of libraries and library services. Though the methodology for assessing impact will be the main issue, a selection of tested “impact indicators” for specified services shall be added. The proposal and justification for this project are in a document that is available for download from the ballot webpage or the link in this email.

If NISO votes to approve this standard, it needs to identify a U.S. expert for the working group. If anyone would like to participate on this project or nominate someone else to participate, I can include the name and contact information in my comments.

Voting deadline: August 13, 2010 (deadline for comments to me is August 6, 2010)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Systematic Review ISO 9230:2007, Information and documentation—Determination of price indexes for print and electronic media purchased by libraries

This is a systematic review ballot for the published standard: ISO 9230:2007, Information and documentation—Determination of price indexes for print and electronic media purchased by libraries.

This International Standard specifies a method for the determination of price indexes relating to the prices of print and electronic media acquired by libraries. It is not meant for calculating a price index of the national media production. The media included are restricted to books, serials and databases. This second edition has been expanded to cover electronic as well as printed books and serials, and electronic databases.

Vote options are Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for all votes other than Confirm.

Voting deadline: September 1, 2010 (deadline for comments to me is August 26, 2010)

Result: ALA has not yet voted but I received one set of comments on May 5

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Systematic Review ISO 15706-2:2007, Information and documentation—International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN)—Part 2: Version identifier

This is a systematic review ballot for the published standard: ISO 15706-2:2007, Information and documentation—International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN)—Part 2: Version identifier

This part of ISO 15706 establishes a voluntary system for the identification of versions of audiovisual works and other content derived from or closely related to an audiovisual work. It is based on the International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN) system defined in ISO 15706. An ISAN combined with the version segment specified in Clause 4 of this part of ISO 15706 constitutes an ISAN version identifier, hereinafter referred to as a V-ISAN. A V-ISAN is a registered, globally unique identifier for versions of an audiovisual work and related content.

Vote options are Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for all votes other than Confirm.

Voting deadline: September 1, 2010 (deadline for comments to me is August 25)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 27730, Information and documentation—International standard collection identifier (ISCI)

This ballot is for the draft standard, ISO/DIS 27730, Information and documentation—International standard collection identifier (ISCI)

This International Standard establishes the specifications for the International Standard Collection Identifier (ISCI) as a unique international identification system for each collection, fond and (archival) series, and part(s) of collections, fonds and series. This International Standard establishes the specifications for the structure of an identifier and promotes the use of the identifier with regard to identifying systems that already exist. It also gives a list of recommended metadata elements that describe a collection.

If this standard receives 100 percent approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC9, it can go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

Vote options are: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: September 27, 2010 (deadline for comments to me is September 20)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 30300, Information and documentation—Management system for records—Fundamentals and vocabulary

This ballot is to approve the TC46/SC11 draft standard: ISO/DIS, Information and documentation—Management system for records—Fundamentals and vocabulary.

This International Standard establishes the objectives for using a Management System for Records (MSR), provides principles for an MSR, describes a process approach and specifies roles for top management. It also defines terms and definitions applicable to the ISO 30300 series of International Standards.

If this standard receives 100 percent approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC11, it can go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

Vote options are: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: October 7, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is September 30)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 30301, Information and documentation—Management system for records—Requirements

This ballot is to approve the TC46/SC11 draft standard: ISO/DIS 30301, Information and documentation—Management system for records—Requirements

This Standard specifies requirements for a Management Systems for Records (MSR) to support an organization in the achievement of its mandate, mission, strategy and goals through the development and implementation of a records policy and objectives and the measurement and monitoring of performance.

If this standard receives 100 percent approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC11, it can go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

Vote options are: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: October 7, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is September 30)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/CD 13008, Information and documentation—Digital records conversion and migration process

This is the first draft of the standard, ISO/CD 13008, Information and documentation—Digital records conversion and migration process. This standard specifies the planning issues, requirements, and procedures for the conversion and/or migration of digital records (which includes digital objects plus metadata) so as to preserve the authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability of such records as evidence of business transactions.

Vote options are: yes, no, abstain

Voting deadline: September 10, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is September 3)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Educational Activities

NISO has a very active education calendar. In addition to those webinars and in person meetings mentioned below, the organization has been holding monthly open (i.e., free) teleconferences to provide information about new NISO project and to solicit feedback. NISO events, including links to registration, can be found at: http://www.niso.org/news/events/

Webinars held already in 2010:

  • From ILS to Repository and Back: Data Interoperability (January 13)
  • What It Takes To Make It Last: E-Resources Preservation (February 10)
  • Identifiers: New Problems, New Solutions, Part 1: What’s in a Name? Latest Developments in Identifiers (March 10)
  • Identifiers: New Problems, New Solutions, Part 2: Content Identification: What’s New with ISO Identifiers, ISBN, and ISTC (March 17)
  • RFID in Libraries: Standards and Expanding Use (April 14)
  • It’s in the Mail: Best Practices for Resource Sharing (May 12)

Webinars slated for the remainder of 2010:

  • Show Me the Data: Managing Data Sets for Scholarly Content (August 11)
  • Measuring Use, Assessing Success, Part 1: Measure, Assess, Improve, Repeat: Using Library Performance Metrics (September 8)
  • Measuring Use, Assessing Success, Part 2: Count Me In: Measuring Individual Item Usage (September 15)
  • It’s Only as Good as the Metadata: Improving OpenURL and Knowledgebase Quality (October 13)
  • The Case of the Disappearing Journal: Solving the Title Transfer and Online Display Mystery (November 10)
  • Unprecedented Interaction: Providing Accessibility for the Disabled (December 8)

In person events held or to be held in 2010:

  • Discovery to Delivery: Creating a First-Class User Experience (Atlanta, March 23)
  • E-Resource Management: From Start to Finish (and Back Again) (Chicago, October 7)

Miscellaneous

Bruce Heterick, Vice President, Outreach & Participation Services of the Portico service of Ithaka, was elected Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect of NISO. His biographical information is available at: http://www.portico.org/digital-preservation/about-us/staff/. Prior to being elected Vice-Chair, Bruce had been a NISO Director. As a result of his election, his director’s position will need to be filled and a separate ballot will be issued.

A list of current voting members of NISO, along with member of the Library Standards Alliance, can be found at: http://www.niso.org/about/roster/. Information about institutional membership in NISO is available at: http://www.niso.org/about/join/.

NISO members receive a subscription to Information Standards Quarterly and significant registration discounts for all NISO events. Even more importantly, NISO membership demonstrates an understanding of and strategic commitment to the development and use of standards. In the 21st Century, what vital information organization can survive without adherence to standards? Becoming a NISO member provides an organization with the opportunity to interact with expert members of the information services community with the goal of enhancing standards development and use.

NISO’s monthly newsletter, Newsline, is free and can be accessed at http://www.niso.org/publications/newsline/. Issues from 2008–2010 are available.

A list of current, as well as some recently withdrawn, NISO standards can be found at http://www.niso.org/kst/reports/standards/. ANSI/NISO standards can be purchased in hardcopy and are also available for free download.

A PowerPoint overview of the NISO standards development process can be found at http://www.niso.org/about/documents/standardsprocess.ppt and the standards development timeline is at http://www.niso.org/standards/timeline.

ISO standards are NOT available online for free downloads. Information about the International Organization for Standardization, including the ISO store and a list of ISO standards, can be found online.