ALCTS Liaisons and Representatives Report on Activities in San Diego

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

ALA Committee on Professional Ethics

Bradford Eden

This committee met only once, as it took care of all of its business at one meeting (it usually has 2 meetings). Minutes from ALA Annual 2010 were approved. Discussion ensued on the Annual 2011 Program Planning. Short discussions were held on open shelf holds, resolution on institutional review boards, executive board liaison report, and the Ethics Education Initiative. Various reports were given from ALA Unit Representatives.

American Association of Law Libraries—Technical Services Special Interest Group

Ajaye Bloomstone

Programs/workshops sponsored by AALL Technical Services Special Interest Section or of interest to technical services librarians to be presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Association of Law Libraries (nonmembers may call AALL if interested in attending):

Workshops:

  1. Putting the “M” in ERM: Best Practices in Electronic Resources Management

Programs:

  1. Electronic Resources management (ERM) Systems Showcase
  2. Cutting Beyond the Bone: managing in an Age of Austerity
  3. RDA for Everyone: Resource Description Access Explained to Non-Catalogers
  4. Authority Control Vocabularies and the Semantic Web
  5. RDA Test: Law Catalogers’ Perspectives
  6. Enhancing Library Services with Technical Services Skills: From the Backroom to the Front Lines
  7. Library in the Clouds: Cloud Computing and Its Impact on Library Services
  8. Library Operations and the Evolution of the ILS: Backfield in Motion?

Programs/workshops sponsored by AALL Technical Services Special Interest Section or of interest to technical services librarians presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Association of Law Libraries (audio recordings of these programs may be available from AALL):

Programs:

  1. What’s In a Name: CORE and I-2, New Standards to Improve Efficiency in the Electronic Resources Environment
  2. Mapping a Digital Collection Development Policy: New Sign Posts of a Whole New Road
  3. Developing Your Supervisory Skills: Motivating and Retaining Tenured, Non-Professional or Unionized Employees
  4. Developing leaders: Inside, Outside, and Together
  5. Mapping Uncharted Terrains: Introducing Archival Best Practices to the Management of Law School, Court and Law Firm Historical Collections
  6. Open Source ILS: What a Service Oriented System Brings to You and Your Library
  7. Glass Half-Full: Explore Techniques for Putting Optimism to Work as a Management Tool in Difficult Times
  8. Catalogers Today: Skill Sets, Expectations and Challenges
  9. SKOS and HIVE: Enhancing the Creation, Design, and Flow of Information
  10. Bringing Increased Efficiency to Technical Services: Is EOCR for You?
  11. The Ever-Evolving World of Vendor-Supplied MARC Records
  12. Beyond Wayback: Preserving Born-Digital Ephemera
  13. Accounting: Prepare for Your Future
  14. MARC and RDA: An Overview
  15. Changing Roles for Technical Services: Faculty Publications and Institutional Repositories
  16. How Are We to Accomplish That Much More With That Much Less?
  17. Facilitation: The Secret to Successful Meetings
  18. Is Quality Control in Academic Law Library Online Catalogs Declining?

American Institute for Conservation (AIC)

Jennifer Hain Teper

Since the AIC meets only annually in May, there has been no significant progress to report to ALCTS at this time. The AIC does continue to consider the role of a library degree for library and archive conservators, however. More information on that topic, and others, will be discussed at the Annual Meeting in Philadelphia from May 31–June 3, 2011.

ASCLA Accessibility

Kevin Furniss

The ALA publication American Libraries online version is now fully accessible. The Assembly is working toward establishing a representative on ALA's Website Advisory Committee

Freedom to Read Foundation

Kay Ann Cassell

Two new legal victories for the freedom to read were reported. The first victory was in September 2010 in the case of Powell’s Books versus Kroger, a lawsuit challenging two new “harmful to minors” statutes passed by the Oregon legislature. FTRF and a number of other groups were co-plaintiffs in this case. The Ninth Circuit confirmed FTRF’s concerns when it ruled both laws unconstitutional on the grounds of overbreadth. “The court held that Oregon’s statutes criminalize the distribution of far more material than hardcore pornography or material that is obscene to minors, and that the statutes are not subject to a limiting construction that would make them constitutional.”

A second lawsuit, filed against the State of Alaska, challenges a newly-adopted Alaska statute that criminalizes the distribution of certain material to minors under the age of sixteen either on the Internet or in person, such as in a library or a bookstore. FTRF filed a lawsuit to challenge the Alaska Statute with a number of other organizations. The district court granted the FTRF’s motion for a preliminary injunction without requiring oral argument, holding that the statute chills free speech and that there is a strong likelihood that the plaintiffs will succeed in overturning the law when the case is tried before the court. On November 17, 2010, the court issued an order clarifying that the statute cannot be enforced during the pendency of the case.

To become a personal member of the Freedom to Read Foundation and to have your libraries and other institutions become organizational members, send a check ($35+ for personal members, $100+ for organizations, $10+ for students) to: Freedom to Read Foundation, 50 E. Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611. Alternatively, you can join or renew your membership by calling (800) 545-2433, ext. 4226, or online at www.ftrf.org/joinftrf.

NISO

Cindy Hepfer, ALA Voting Representative to NISO, July 2007-Annual Conference, June 2011

General

My second term as the ALA Voting Representative to NISO ends with Annual 2011. ALCTS Vice President/President Elect Betsy Simpson will be appointing a new representative in the spring. Any ALCTS member who is interested in serving ALCTS—and ALA—in this role is urged to contact Betsy directly. If you would like to learn more about the what the position entails, please feel free to contact me directly at

I continue to distribute information about NISO activities to the ALCTS Leaders List. It is my expectation that, as appropriate, these chairs distribute my messages to committee members. I also continue to distribute notifications regarding NISO and ISO standards ballots to chairs of specific ALA committees which include information standards in their charges, as well as to other interested individuals who have subscribed to niso@ala.org. If I have failed to include any ALCTS committee chair on this list who ought to be included, please let me know and I will add you. One of the members of the list—Diane Hillmann—posts ballot information to the Standards Watch section of the LITA blog at http://litablog.org/category/standards/, another way that ALA members and others can find out about NISO and ISO ballot activity. Once again, I wish to thank Diane for helping me keep ALA members and other in the library and information community informed about standards at ballot. The niso@ala.org list, the ALCTS Leaders List, and the LITA blog offer opportunities for ALA members to keep in touch with ongoing information standards work and to provide pertinent comments on those standards. Finally, this semiannual report in ANO provides an overview of recent NISO and ISO standards activity.

Standards Activity July 1–Jan. 14, 2011

Brief descriptions of NISO and ISO ballots balloted or sent out for comments during the past six months (through the week of ALA Midwinter) are included in this report. In the three and a half years that I have served as ALA voting representative to NISO, and like my predecessors before me, I have only rarely received feedback from ALA members about ballots. While I am occasionally asked by a member to provide a copy of a draft ISO standards document, the near total lack of feedback dismays me because of any organization I can think of, the American Library Association ought to have an interest in information standards! While NISO standards and drafts are freely available, ISO standards—even in draft—are copyrighted and available in a password-protected area of the NISO web site. However, I am permitted to share ISO drafts with ALA members so that they can comment. All ALA members have to do is contact me, confirm that they are an ALA member, and ask to see a specific draft standard.

A full list of NISO voting members can be found at: http://www.niso.org/about/roster/. In addition to ALA, library-related organizations in the voting pool include the American Society for Information Science & Technology, the Association of Jewish Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, INFLIBNET, the Library Binding Institute, the Medical Library Association, the Music Library Association, OCLC, and the Society of American Archivists. Specific libraries, federal offices, or library consortia that are voting members include: the Armed Forces Medical Library, California Digital Library, the College Center for Library Automation, Helsinki University Library, the Johns Hopkins University Press and the Sheridan Libraries of Johns Hopkins University, the Library of Congress, Los Alamos National Laboratory, MINITEX, the National Agricultural Library, the National Archives and Records Administration, the National Library of Medicine, the Triangle Research Libraries Network, and the US Government Printing Office. The majority of the remaining voting members are either commercial—publishers, systems vendors, subscription agencies, technology vendors—or organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center, the DAISY Consortium, and the International DOI Foundation. At the same link, there is a list of Library Standards Alliance (LSA) members, i.e., library members of NISO. LSA Premier members receive automatic access to NISO’s extensive webinar offerings. Information related to institutional membership in NISO can be found at http://www.niso.org/about/join/alliance/LSA_Application.pdf.

NISO Standards

NISO recognizes that its standards require regular review to remain effective. For ANSI/NISO standards, this review is done in accordance to ANSI requirements for maintenance. For those ANSI/NISO standards under periodic maintenance, this must be completed not later than five (5) years after the ANSI approval date. Several such standards came to vote in recent months. NOTE: the language below is largely lifted directly from the ballots.

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.43-1993 (R2006), Standard Address Number (SAN) for the Publishing Industry

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.43-1993 (R2006), Standard Address Number (SAN) for the Publishing Industry. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-43-1993r2006

Recommendation: In accordance with NISO's operating procedures, all review ballots are accompanied by a recommendation from the responsible leadership committee. NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommended a vote of REAFFIRM for ANSI/NISO Z39.43-1993 (R2006), with the further recommendation that, if reaffirmed, a group would be formed to discuss a future revision (see next steps below).

Justification & Next Steps: The Topic Committee recommended a "REAFFIRM" vote based on feedback received during the review period from this voting pool. The standard is in widespread use throughout both the library and publishing communities. The standard works well in its current form. However new standards have come into being which are not referenced or harmonized with the SAN. For example:

  1. The MIX standard has a few differences centering around missing or confusing data values.
  2. Reference to the NISO I2 (Institutional Identifier) initiative.
  3. References to other library identifier work (ISIL, for example) should be considered.

Other editorial enhancements have been suggested, as well, including making it explicit that corporate, special libraries, government libraries, as well as individual branches of a multi-branch library system can be assigned their own SAN, and to make it explicitly clear that individual school libraries in a school system can be assigned their own SAN. It had also been suggested that NISO examine whether there are sufficient digits allotted to the identification code for the increased potential usage in a linked data world. Finally, a revision working group would determine whether ISO's Technical Committee 46, Information and documentation, should be presented a proposal to make the SAN an ISO standard.

Voting Options: As a member of the voting pool, ALA was required to vote on this ballot with one of the following voting options:

  • Reaffirm. Minor editorial corrections may be included in the reaffirmed standard.
  • Revise. In cases where the Managing Committee recommends a vote to “Revise,” the ballot includes a list of areas where revision is recommended. If approved, NISO will propose a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved. Votes to “Revise” should be limited to substantive revisions. PLEASE NOTE: “Revise” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Withdraw. If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain 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. If the Voting Member feels that, despite originally joining the Voting Pool with the intention to vote, that the Voting Member can no longer record a voting position, the Member may choose to “Abstain.” Members should provide the reason(s) for abstaining. Possible reasons include but are not limited to: a perceived conflict of interest, the inability to reach internal consensus, or a lack of expertise to evaluate areas addressed by the draft.

Comments must be provided with Withdraw and Revise (negative) votes but may accompany all ballots.

Voting deadline: Jan. 14, 2011

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm

Voting summary: 68% of eligible companies voted, 100% to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.78-2000 (R2006), Library Binding

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.78-2000 (R2006), Library Binding. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-78-2000R2006/

Recommendation: NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommended a vote of REAFFIRM for ANSI/NISO Z39.78-2000 (R2006) as a stabilized standard.

Justification and Next Steps: The Topic Committee recommended a "REAFFIRM" vote based on feedback received during the review period from this voting pool. A limited number of institutions voted to reaffirm the standard, and most did not recommend any changes, indicating it is a stable standard. There were comments, however, that indicated a need to update the standard to reflect current practice in two areas in particular (test methods for book cover materials and to the review of covering materials). If reaffirmed, NISO indicated that it would identify an appropriate author for updating the text.

Voting Options: As a member of the voting pool, ALA was required to vote on this ballot with one of the following voting options:

  • Reaffirm. Minor editorial corrections may be included in the reaffirmed standard.
  • Revise. In cases where the Managing Committee recommends a vote to “Revise,” the ballot includes a list of areas where revision is recommended. If approved, NISO will propose a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved. Votes to “Revise” should be limited to substantive revisions. PLEASE NOTE: “Revise” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Withdraw. If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain 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. If the Voting Member feels that, despite originally joining the Voting Pool with the intention to vote, that the Voting Member can no longer record a voting position, the Member may choose to “Abstain.” Members should provide the reason(s) for abstaining. Possible reasons include but are not limited to: a perceived conflict of interest, the inability to reach internal consensus, or a lack of expertise to evaluate areas addressed by the draft.

Comments must be provided with Withdraw and Revise (negative) votes but may accompany all ballots.

Voting deadline: Jan. 14, 2011

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm and provided substantive comments (thank you to PARS and Tara Kennedy for the comments!)

Voting summary: 80% of eligible companies voted, 83% to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.71-2006, Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.71-2006, Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-71-2006

Recommendation: NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommended a vote of REAFFIRM for ANSI/NISO Z39.71-2006, with the further recommendation that, if reaffirmed, a group be formed to discuss a future revision (see “next steps” below).

Justification: The Topic Committee recommended a "REAFFIRM" vote based on feedback received during the review period from this voting pool. This standard is in widespread use in systems such as OCLC and ILS. Feedback received indicates that it generally works well.

Next steps: Although the standard works in its current form, comments received during the review indicate that there are areas where a future revision should be considered. If reaffirmed, the Topic Committee would then draft a proposal to revise the standard based on this feedback. This proposal would go to the NISO membership for approval in order to establish a working group to undertake the revision. Voting members were encouraged to provide any additional comments with our vote that might provide the Topic Committee with further information or to recommend potential members of a revision working group. With NISO voting member approval, a revision can begin at any time after the reaffirmation of the current standard without waiting until the next 5-year periodic review.

Voting Options: As a member of the voting pool, ALA was required to vote on this ballot with one of the following voting options:

  • Reaffirm. Minor editorial corrections may be included in the reaffirmed standard.
  • Revise. In cases where the Managing Committee recommends a vote to “Revise,” the ballot includes a list of areas where revision is recommended. If approved, NISO will propose a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved. Votes to “Revise” should be limited to substantive revisions. PLEASE NOTE: “Revise” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Withdraw. If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain 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. If the Voting Member feels that, despite originally joining the Voting Pool with the intention to vote, that the Voting Member can no longer record a voting position, the Member may choose to “Abstain.” Members should provide the reason(s) for abstaining. Possible reasons include but are not limited to: a perceived conflict of interest, the inability to reach internal consensus, or a lack of expertise to evaluate areas addressed by the draft.

Comments must be provided with Withdraw and Revise (negative) votes but may accompany all ballots.

Voting deadline: Jan. 14, 2011

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm and nominated Helen Gbala, who had volunteered, for a working group

Voting summary: 71% of eligible companies voted, 91% to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.87-2006, Data Dictionary - Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images

This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.87-2006, Data Dictionary - Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-87-2006

Recommendation: NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee Recommends a vote of REAFFIRM for ANSI/NISO Z39.87-2006.

Justification: The Topic Committee recommended a "REAFFIRM" vote based on feedback of current use of this standard received during the review period from this voting pool.

Next steps: If reaffirmed, the Topic Committee would then appoint a subcommittee to review the standard more closely to determine if and why a revision might be needed. A reaffirmation would provide additional time to do a more thorough study of this standard. Voting members were encouraged to provide any additional comments with our vote that might provide the Topic Committee with further information regarding the possible need for a future revision. It was noted that a revision can begin at any time after the reaffirmation of the current standard (with NISO voting member approval); it is not necessary to wait until the next 5-year periodic review.

Voting Options: As a member of the voting pool, ALA was required to vote on this ballot with one of the following voting options:

  • Reaffirm. Minor editorial corrections may be included in the reaffirmed standard.
  • Revise. In cases where the Managing Committee recommends a vote to “Revise,” the ballot includes a list of areas where revision is recommended. If approved, NISO will propose a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved. Votes to “Revise” should be limited to substantive revisions. PLEASE NOTE: “Revise” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Withdraw. If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain 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. If the Voting Member feels that, despite originally joining the Voting Pool with the intention to vote, that the Voting Member can no longer record a voting position, the Member may choose to “Abstain.” Members should provide the reason(s) for abstaining. Possible reasons include but are not limited to: a perceived conflict of interest, the inability to reach internal consensus, or a lack of expertise to evaluate areas addressed by the draft.

Comments must be provided with Withdraw and Revise (negative) votes but may accompany all ballots.

Voting deadline: Jan. 14, 2011

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm

Voting summary: 65% of eligible companies voted, 100% to reaffirm

ISO Standards

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

This ballot was 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 was 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. Invitations for additional nominations were solicited.

Voting options were Yes (approve the new work item), No (do not believe the new work item should proceed), or Abstain. No votes always require comments.

Voting deadline: July 16, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes; no ALA member stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 41% of eligible voting members voted, and 95% which did not abstain voted

Ballot title: Revised scope for ISO/TC 46/SC 11 Archives/Records management committee

This was a “short turn-around ballot.” It was submitted to approve the revised scope for the ISO/TC 46/SC 11 Archives/Records management committee as written in the referenced document (N1081) that was available from the ballot webpage and the link in the ballot announcement e-mail. Voting options were YES (approve the new scope); NO (do not approve the new scope); or ABSTAIN.

Voting deadline: July 23, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

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

This ballot was for a new work item proposal to develop a standard on Language resources management - Segmentation Rules eXchange (SRX)—which 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 noted: 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 was a liaison ballot from TC37 Terminology and other language and content resources / SC4 Language resource management. Therefore NISO could only submit a vote recommendation and any comments. The U.S. vote would be submitted by ASTM International. NISO could, however, nominate an expert to work on this project (if approved). If there was interest in applying this standard to Knowledge Organization Systems, it was strongly recommended that someone from the NISO community participate in the standard's development, as it was unlikely that the experts coming from the TC37 community will have an understanding of that viewpoint. Thus voting reps were asked to nominate an expert. The voting options were: 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

Result: ALA voted yes; no one within ALA stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 35% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

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

This ballot was 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 was intended to complement the existing set of standards for statistics and quality measures in libraries and information services. The intent was to define and describe methods for assessing and measuring the impact of libraries and library services. Though the methodology for assessing impact would be the main issue, a selection of tested “impact indicators” for specified services would be added.

If NISO voted to approve this standard, it would need to identify a U.S. expert for the working group and we were invited to participate on this project or nominate someone else to participate.

Voting deadline: Aug. 13, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes; no one within ALA stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

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

This ballot was to approve a new project to revise ISO 11620:2008, Information and documentation - Library performance indicators. The revision was proposed due to recent updates in related standards, both nationally and internationally, and to address new developments in digital library services.

If NISO voted to approve this standard, it needed to identify a U.S. expert for the working group and we were invited to participate on this project or nominate someone else to participate.

Voting deadline: Aug. 13, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes; no one within ALA stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 24614-1, Language resource management—Word segmentation of written texts—Part 1: Basic concepts and general principles

This was a ballot for the standard ISO/FDIS 24614-1, Language resource management—Word segmentation of written texts—Part 1: Basic concepts and general principles. This part of ISO 24614 presents the basic concepts and general principles of word segmentation, and provides language-independent guidelines to enable written texts to be segmented, in a reliable and reproducible manner, into word segmentation units (WSU). Elaborating standards for the rules and methods for word segmentation can facilitate innovation and development in areas such as language learning and translation. It could improve language-related technologies, including spell checking, grammar checking, dictionary lookup, terminology management, translation memory, information retrieval, information extraction and machine translation.

This ballot was from a liaison committee: TC 37, Terminology and other language and content resources, Subcommittee SC 4, Language resource management. NISO members were to recommend a vote and provide comments, but the U.S. vote was to be submitted by the TC37 administrator, ASTM International. The voting options were Yes (recommend approval), No (do not recommend approval), or Abstain (from voting). Comments were required for No votes and optional for Yes or Abstain votes.

Voting deadline: Aug. 20, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 27% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

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

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

Voting deadline: Sept. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to revise/amend because one ALA member submitted two questions. The first question regarding licensing prices and whether post-cancellation access through digital products such as Portico and LOCKSS should be included, while the second dealt with newspapers: while one section addresses microforms, neither it nor the terms & definitions address digitized microforms.

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voting members voted; 77% which did not abstain voted to confirm and 8% (i.e. ALA) voted to revise or amend

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

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

Voting deadline: Sept. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 31% of eligible voters voted, and 90% which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Call for experts and a convenor to revise of ISO 8: 1977 Documentation—Presentation of periodicals

ISO TC46 has voted to revise ISO 8: 1977 Documentation—Presentation of periodicals, which "sets out rules intended to enable editors and publishers to present periodicals in a form which will facilitate their use."

This ballot was looking to identify one or more U.S. experts to be on this revision working group. We were asked, if nominating someone, please check off the "Yes I want to nominate an expert" option and include complete contact information in the comments section. Voting members who had no expert to nominate were asked to check the Abstain choice.

Voting deadline: Sept. 3, 2010

Result: ALA, along with ARL and LC, nominated Regina Reynolds

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voters voted, and 100% nominated an expert (no other respondent named a specific person other than Regina Reynolds)

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

This was the first draft of the standard, ISO/CD 13008, Information and documentation—Digital records conversion and migration process. It 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. Voting options were: Yes (approve for progression to the Draft International Standard (DIS) stage); No (do not approve for DIS stage); or Abstain. Comments are required for No and Abstain votes; comments are optional for Yes votes. This Committee Draft stage was said to offer the best opportunity to have substantive comments considered and incorporated by the Working Group.

Voting deadline: Sept. 10, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 29% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Draft Digital records preservation: Where to start guide

This was a short turn-around call for comments on the TC46/SC11/WG7 draft Digital records preservation: Where to start guide. Following this ballot, the guide was going to be edited based on comments and then would likely go directly to publication. Vote options were: Comments have been submitted, or: Abstain.

Voting deadline: Sept. 24, 2010

Result: ALA voted to abstain

Voting summary: 24% of eligible voters voted, 13 of which abstained

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

This ballot was for the draft standard, ISO/DIS 27730, Information and documentation—International standard collection identifier (ISCI) which 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. The 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. NISO indicated that if this standard were to receive 100% approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC9, it could go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

Voting deadline: Sept. 27, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 31% of eligible voters voted, and 85% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Liaison ballot—Annex A.7 ISO/DIS 19011, Guidelines for auditing management systems

This was a ballot from TC 176/SC3 (Quality management and quality assurance / Supporting technologies) for ANNEX A.7, Discipline-specific knowledge and skills of auditors—Records, from the standard ISO/DIS 19011, Guidelines for auditing management systems. As a liaison, NISO could provide comments only and was only asked to comment on Annex A, Clause A.7, not the entire standard. Voting options were 1) Have comments (to be included or attached as a separate document); 2) Do not have comments (which means that the voting member was fine with the way this clause is currently written); or 3) Abstain. The entire standard is provided as a reference on the ballot webpage. NISO’s U.S. comments were to be sent to the Secretariat of TC46/SC11 to include with the SC11 response to TC176/SC3.

Voting deadline: Oct. 1, 2010

Result: ALA indicated that it did not have comments

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voters voted, and 78% likewise indicated that they did not have comments

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 16175-2 (2nd version), Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 2: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments

This was the second 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. It was being fast-tracked and the standard was therefore not required to be in the normal ISO format. The first ballot did not pass. The working group made some changes as noted in the response to comments document that is included at the end of the Explanatory Report. The U.S. was one of the countries that voted No; some of our comments were accepted and others were not. This is Part 2 of a three part standard. Parts 1 and 3 were both approved in the original DIS ballot. Only Part 2 has been edited and is being re-balloted. Vote options were 1) Yes (approve the standard, with or without comments); 2) No (do not approve; comments required); 3) Abstain.

Voting deadline: Oct. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 27% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

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

This ballot was 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. NISO indicated that if this standard were to receive 100% approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC11, it could go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

Voting deadline: Oct. 7, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 36% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

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. It 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. NISO indicated that if this standard were to receive 100% approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC11, it could go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

Voting deadline: Oct. 7, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voters voted, and 90% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DTR 23081-3 Information and documentation—Managing metadata for records—Part 3: Self-assessment method

This was a draft technical report ballot for ISO/DTR 23081-3 Information and documentation—Managing metadata for records—Part 3: Self-assessment method. The two previously published parts are both standards. The first part addresses "Principles" and the second part covers "Conceptual and implementation issues." This third part provides guidance on conducting a self-assessment on records metadata in relationship with the creation, capture and control of records. It includes a checklist (provided at that time in a separate Excel document) that is designed to identify an organization’s current state of records metadata readiness. The draft technical report and the Excel checklist were available for download from the ballot page and could have been obtained from me for review and comment.

Voting deadline: Oct. 7, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 31% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/CD 17024, Conformity assessment—General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons

This was a liaison ballot for ISO/CD 17024, Conformity assessment—General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons, to approve moving the standard to the next stage as a DIS (Draft International Standard). This ballot was issued by the ISO Committee on conformity assessment (CASCO). The International Standard specifies requirements for a body certifying persons against specific requirements, including the development and maintenance of a certification scheme for persons. It was drawn up with the objective of achieving and promoting a globally accepted benchmark for organizations operating certification of persons.

Voting deadline: Oct. 8, 2010

Result: I had hoped for feedback on this topic and, when none was received, did not vote

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/NP 19005-3, Document management—Electronic document file format for long-term preservation including embedded files—Part 3: Use of ISO 32000-1 (PDF/A-3)

This was a liaison ballot to approve a new work item: ISO/NP 19005-3, Document management—Electronic document file format for long-term preservation including embedded files—Part 3: Use of ISO 32000-1 (PDF/A-3). This part of ISO 19005 specifies the use of the Portable Document Format (PDF) 1.7, as formalized in ISO 32000-1, for preserving the static visual representation of page based electronic documents over time in addition to allowing any type of other content to be included as an embedded file or attachment. The Joint Working group received requests from organizations and countries to be able to archive embedded objects in the PDF/A file. The current PDF/A-1 and PDF/A-2 file formats are for static e-paper and do not allow the embedding of objects.

Since this ballot was from a liaison committee (TC171/SC2, Document management applications/Application issues), NISO U.S. TC46 TAG members could only recommend a vote and provide comments. NISO could also nominate someone to be on the working group, and nominations were invited.

Voting deadline: Oct. 21, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes; no one within our organization stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voters voted, 94% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Re-election of Dr Roswitha Poll as Chairperson of ISO/TC 46/SC 8

The term of office of Dr Roswitha Poll as Chairperson of ISO/TC 46/SC 8 was indicated to be ending in December 2010. The ISO/TC 46/SC 8-Secretariat nominated Dr Poll for another term and provided a short bio takenfrom the QQML2010 conference where she gave a keynote talk: "Dr. Roswitha Poll was chief librarian of Münster University Library from 1987 to 2004. She is now chairing the [ISO TC46/SC8] committee "Quality-Statistics and Performance Evaluation" and the working groups for "International library statistics", "Performance indicators for national libraries", and "Statistics for library buildings" within ISO (International Organization of Standardization). Since 1989, she has been working in IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations), especially in the section "Statistics and Evaluation". She works in projects dealing with management and evaluation of libraries and information systems. Her present publications deal with measures for the input and output, quality, costs and impact of library services."

We were asked to indicate whether we approved the re-election by voting either YES (approve) or NO (do not approve) or ABSTAIN. If we voted No, we had to identify an alternate chairperson.

Voting deadline: Oct. 25, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 30% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/IEC FDIS 17021, Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems

This was a ballot sent to TC46/SC11 as a liaison for comments only.

The standard, ISO/IEC FDIS 17021, Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, specifies requirements for certification bodies. It is intended to ensure that certification bodies operate management system certification in a competent, consistent and impartial manner, thereby facilitating the recognition of such bodies and the acceptance of their certifications on a national and international basis. The identified management systems identify a number of areas where records are involved. Voting options were: Yes I have comments, No I do not have comments, or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Nov. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted no

Voting summary: 29% of eligible voters voted, and 67% which did not abstain voted no; there were no substantive comments from any NISO member

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 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 TC46/SC11 ballot for the standard: ISO/FDIS 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. It was a fast-track standard and therefore did not have to conform to all ISO format requirements. ISO 16175-1 was prepared by the International Council on Archives. There were two additional parts to this standard that were being balloted separately. (Part 2 was being re-balloted as a DIS and Part 1 as an FDIS.) Because of the dynamic and manipulable nature of business systems, the capture of fixed records and the ongoing management of their authenticity, reliability, usability and integrity can be challenging. Organizations are therefore faced with a significant risk of mismanagement, inefficiency and unnecessary expenditure. While these same organizations may have an electronic records management system (ERMS), it may not capture all records of the organization. This document was designed to address the records management gap caused by the increasing use of business systems. Voting options were Yes (Approve), No (Do not approve), and Abstain. Since this is an FDIS ballot, a Yes vote could only be accompanied by editorial (non-substantive) comments.

Voting deadline: Nov. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 29% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 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 TC46/SC11 ballot for the standard: ISO/FDIS 16175-1, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 1: Overview and statement of principles. It was a fast-track standard and therefore did not have to conform to all ISO format requirements. ISO 16175-1 was prepared by the International Council on Archives. There are two additional parts to this standard that are being balloted separately. (Part 2 is being re-balloted as a DIS and Part 3 as an FDIS.) The application of this set of functional requirements is meant to not only inform the development of electronic records management software, but also to aid in the incorporation of records functionality into generic business information systems software products, as well as specific line-of business systems. These specifications can also be used by the private sector (for example, multinational corporations) as a stand-alone tool. Voting options were Yes (Approve), No (Do not approve), and Abstain. Since this is an FDIS ballot, a Yes vote could only be accompanied by editorial (non-substantive) comments.

Voting deadline: Nov. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 29% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 26324, Information and documentation—Digital object identifier system

This was a TC46/SC9 ballot for the standard: ISO/FDIS 26324, Information and documentation—Digital object identifier system. This International Standard specifies the syntax, description and resolution functional components of the digital object identifier system, and the general principles for the creation, registration and administration of DOI names (where DOI is an acronym for “digital object identifier”).

Voting options were: Yes (approve the standard), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Since this is an FDIS (final draft), Yes votes could only include editorial (non-substantive) comments, not comments. A copy of the draft standard was available for download from the ballot webpage, which I could have provided to ALA members. The final voting report of the previous DIS version of the standard was also available; it included a compilation of the comments and the Working Group’s response, which indicated what was changed in the FDIS version.

Voting deadline: Nov. 2, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 36% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 17933:2000, GEDI—Generic Electronic Document Interchange

This was a systematic review for the standard ISO 17933:2000, GEDI—Generic Electronic Document Interchange and was the first edition of the International Standard that specifies a format for exchange of electronic document copies between computer systems. The format includes the definition of a GEDI Header containing information about the requester, supplier, and format of the document and relevant bibliographic information. The standard is applicable to computer systems supporting Interlibrary Loan and Document Transmission applications. Voting options were: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Dec. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 27% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 3297:2007, Information and documentation—International standard serial number (ISSN)

This is a systematic review for the standard ISO 3297:2007, Information and documentation—International standard serial number (ISSN). The fourth edition of the ISSN standard broadened the scope to apply the ISSN identifier to all types of continuing resources (not just serials) and introduced the mechanism of the “linking ISSN (ISSN-L)” for the collocation or linking among the different media versions of the same continuing resource. Voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Dec. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm (when no comments were received, I specifically sought them)

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

ISO Standards with Voting in Progress at the time of this report was written

The deadline for some the following ISO standards will have passed by the time this report appears in ANO. If the deadline has not already passed, any ALA member who wishes to see any of these drafts may contact me directly and confirm that you are an ALA member. As previously indicated, not only ISO standards but draft standards as well are copyrighted. However, I am permitted to send a copy to any ALA members who indicate a wish to read the standard in order to offer comments.

Ballot title: Proposal to revise the standard ISO/NP 21127:2006, Information and documentation—a reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information

The proposal was made by ICOM (International Council of Museums) CIDOC (International Committee for Documentation) to incorporate changes requested by the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group and to address comments received during the systematic review and to correct some inconsistencies. The original standard was based on work done by ICOM/CIDOC.

Included as reference documents with this ballot were:

N746—the new work item proposal that includes justification for the project

N747—a reference copy of the proposed revised standard that was prepared by ICOM/CIDOC

N748—a marked-up copy of the proposed revision showing what was changed from the published version

Voting options were: Yes—approve the new project and move the draft to the DIS stage; No—do not approve the project; Abstain.

Voting deadline: Jan. 21, 2011

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Assessment of TC46 Transliteration Standards

The TC46 Secretariat is soliciting input as follow-up for resolution 6 of TC 46 taken in the Republic of Korea in May 2011 to assess the interest and need to revise the transliteration standards. A Word document is provided with this ballot that lists all 15 transliteration standards. Voting reps are asked to make a copy of the document, fill in our name and organization and mark in the appropriate column next to each standard whether we recommend Confirm (C), Revise (R), Withdraw (W), or Abstain (A). If we mark the “R” (revise) column, we are asked to indicate in the comments column of the Word document the name(s) and email addresses for anyone that could potentially represent the U.S. on a revision working group for that particular standard.

For each standard listed on the Word document, a URL is provided with a link to the full-text of the standard.

Ballot options: Recommendations attached; abstain from all

NOTE ... Transliteration standards included are:

ISO 9:1995 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Cyrillic characters into Latin characters—Slavic and non-Slavic languages

ISO 233:1984 Documentation—Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters

ISO 233-2:1993 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters—Part 2: Arabic language—Simplified transliteration

ISO 233-3:1999 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters—Part 3: Persian language—Simplified transliteration

ISO 259:1984 Documentation—Transliteration of Hebrew characters into Latin characters

ISO 259-2:1994 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Hebrew characters into Latin characters—Part 2: Simplified transliteration

ISO 843:1997 Information and documentation—Conversion of Greek characters into Latin characters

ISO 3602:1989 Documentation—Romanization of Japanese (kana script)

ISO 7098:1991 Information and documentation—Romanization of Chinese

ISO 9984:1996 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Georgian characters into Latin characters

ISO 9985:1996 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Armenian characters into Latin characters

ISO 11940:1998 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Thai

ISO 11940-2:2007 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Thai characters into Latin characters—Part 2: Simplified transcription of Thai language

ISO/TR 11941:1996 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Korean script into Latin characters

ISO 15919:2001 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Devanagari and related Indic scripts into Latin characters

Voting deadline: (deadline for comments to me is Feb. 4, 2011)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Comments request for Discussion Paper - Archiving and electronic storage media

A liaison committee, ISO TC171/SC1 (Document management applications/Quality), is distributing this discussion paper on Archiving and Electronic Storage Media for comments. This document looks at information and standards available in archiving activities and underlines a lack of technical elements useful to the establishment of safe and economic procedures of electronic preservation.

Voting options are 1) Have comments; 2) Do not have comments; and 3) Abstain. If the voting rep selects "Have comments", s/he is to include comments in the comments box of the ballot webpage or attach a comments document.

Voting deadline: Feb. 21, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Feb. 11)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

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

This ballot is to approve the TC46/SC11 draft standard: ISO/DIS 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. These digital records can be active or residing in a repository.

If this standard receives 100% 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. Any comments submitted with a Yes vote may be rejected by the WG without further balloting.

Voting options are: Yes (Approve), No (Do not approve), Abstain

Voting deadline: Apr. 29, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Apr. 20)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

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

This is the second part of a three-part standard that has been fast-tracked through the ISO approval process. Parts 1 and 3 have already been approved and published. This part articulates a set of functional requirements for digital records management systems. These requirements apply to records irrespective of the media in which they were created and/or stored.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Since this is an FDIS, Yes votes can only have editorial comments.

Voting deadline: Feb. 15, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Feb. 7)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 28560-1, Information and documentation—RFID in libraries—Part 1: Data elements and general guidelines for implementation

This is Part 1 of a three-part standard. The other two parts are in separate ballots with the same ballot deadline.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Yes votes can have editorial comments only as this is the final stage of balloting for this standard.

Voting deadline: Feb. 8, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Jan. 28)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 28560-2, Information and documentation—RFID in libraries—Part 2: Encoding of RFID data elements based on rules from ISO/IEC 15962

This is Part 2 of a three-part standard. The other two parts are in separate ballots with the same ballot deadline.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Yes votes can have editorial comments only as this is the final stage of balloting for this standard.

Voting deadline: Feb. 8, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Jan. 28)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 28560-3, Information and documentation—RFID in libraries—Part 3: Fixed length encoding

This is Part 3 of a three-part standard. The other two parts are in separate ballots with the same ballot deadline.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Yes votes can have editorial comments only as this is the final stage of balloting for this standard.

Voting deadline: Feb. 8, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Jan. 28)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: New Work Item Proposal—Information and documentation - International standard document link

This ballot is for approval of a TC46/SC9 new work item to develop a standard for Information and documentation - International standard document link.

Voting options are: Yes (approve the establishment of a new project and working group to develop the proposed standard); No (do not approve the proposal as a new project); Abstain. If the U.S. votes to approve, we will be expected to nominate an expert to participate on the working group. If ALA votes Yes and wishes to nominate someone else to be the U.S. working group member, I need to provide the name and contact information.

Voting deadline: Mar. 3, 2011 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 22)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 3166-2:2007, Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions—Part 2: Country subdivision code

This second edition of this part of ISO 3166 establishes a universally applicable code for the representation of the names of principal administrative divisions of countries and territories included in ISO 3166-1. The country names and country 2-alpha codes are determined in Part 1 of this standard. Comments, changes, and corrections on this systematic review should be focused on the subdivision names and codes (in addition to the narrative clauses).

Voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Mar. 1, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 21)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 3602:1989, Documentation—Romanization of Japanese (kana script)

This International Standard is one of a series of standards dealing with the conversion of systems of writing to provide a means for communication of written messages in a form which permits the automatic transmission and reconstitution of information by man or machine. This International Standard establishes a system for the romanization of the Japanese written language. Although Japanese writing is composed of both kana (Japanese) and kanzi (Chinese) script, this standard refers only to the transcription of kana into the latin alphabet.

Voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Mar. 1, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 21)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Systematic review of ISO 11940-2:2007, Information and documentation—Transliteration of Thai characters into Latin characters, Part 2: Simplified transcription of Thai language

This first edition of part 2 of ISO 11940 provides a specification for the conversion of Thai characters (or the transliteration of Thai obtained from ISO 11940:1998 (renumbered as ISO 11940-1:1998). It includes pronunciation rules and conversion tables of Thai consonants and vowels. These rules are applied, in order, to each word which can be looked up or compared in the Dictionary of the Thai Royal Institute or a dictionary of Thai pronunciation.

Voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Mar. 1, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 21)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/DTR 17068 Information and documentation—Records management—Third party repository for electronic records

The purpose of this technical report is to present a method of keeping and utilizing electronic records based on Trusted Third Party Repositories (TTPRs) in order to enhance social trust about digital evidence of electronic records. This technical report also details what is required in securing TTPRs as a scheme for verifying and proving the authenticity of electronic records exchanged among parties.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. No votes require comments.

Voting deadline: Mar. 23, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 21)

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 projects and to solicit feedback. All NISO events, including links to registration information, can be found at http://www.niso.org/news/events/.

Webinars (summer 2010-the end of 2010)

  • Control Your Vocabulary: Real-World Applications of Semantic Technology (June 9)
  • Show Me the Data: Managing Data Sets for Scholarly Content (Aug. 11)
  • Dublin Core: The Road from Metadata Formats to Linked Data (Aug. 25, presented in conjunction with the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative)
  • Measure, Assess, Improve, Repeat: Using Library Performance Metrics (Sept. 8)
  • Count Me In: Measuring Individual Item Usage (Sept. 15)
  • It’s Only as Good as the Metadata: Improving OpenURL and Knowledge Base Quality (Oct. 13)
  • The Case of the Disappearing Journal: Solving the Title Transfer and Online Display Mystery (Nov. 10)
  • Unprecedented Access: Improving the User Experience for People with Print Disabilities (Dec. 8)

Webinars Slated for Early 2011

The Three S’s of Electronic Resource Management: Systems, Standards and Subscriptions (Jan. 12)

  • Back from the Endangered List: Using Authority Data to Enhance the Semantic Web (Feb. 9)
  • Patrons, ILL and Acquisitions (Mar. 9)
  • RFID Systems, Part 1: An Introduction (Apr. 13)
  • RFID Systems, Part 2; Advanced (Apr. 20)

Other topics expected to be covered during the first half of 2011 include: the future ILS—two sessions, one from the cataloging point-of-view, the other to deal with user interactions; and linking the Semantic Web together. Check http://www.niso.org/news/events/2011/ for more complete information and how to register.

In-person Events held or expected to held in early 2011

A number of meetings at ALA Midwinter, either NISO sponsored or dealing with standards topics (San Diego, Jan. 7–10); see http://www.niso.org/news/events/2011/alamid2011/

Mobile technology in libraries (April 12; location TBA)

A number of meetings at ALA Annual (New Orleans, June 23-28)

Miscellaneous

Janice Fleming, Director of Business and Planning for the American Psychological Association, continues as Chair of the NISO Board of Directors until July 1, 2011, when Vice Chair Bruce Heterick, Vice President, Outreach and Participation Services for JSTOR/Portico, steps into the Chair role. Librarians on the Board of Directors include Treasurer Barbara Preece, Dean of the Library at California State University, San Marco; Charles Lowry, Executive Director, ARL; and Winston Tabb, Dean of University Libraries and Museums, Johns Hopkins University.

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 twenty-first 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 2008–2011 are available. As of 2011, NISO’s journal, Information Standards Quaterly (ISQ) will become an open access publication. A press release related to this helpful decision by NISO can be found at: http://www.niso.org/news/pr/view?item_key=f84495b3b0757b07ecc65b2db7c8b6ae17b0137c

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 at http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm.