Re: [jats-list] JATS comment form is available at NISO

Subject: Re: [jats-list] JATS comment form is available at NISO
From: "Beck, Jeff (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [E]" <beck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:36:37 +0000

I think some of the confusion comes from a quirk in the NISO system
wherein the easiest way to collect comments is to attach them to a
document. Nettie (from NISO) set up our comment form to be comments on the
JATS 1.0 standard document. She is listed as the document submitter, but
anyone making a comment will be listed as the submitter of that comment.

Although we've anchored the comment form to a copy of the Standard, we'll
collect comments on the standard or on the supporting information (schemas
and documentation at here.

One more thing - the comment form and list of comments should be available
to the public without a NISO login shortly.


that all of our posts or tickets are comments on a document. That document
is a copy of the JATS 1.0 Standard. The document

On 5/15/13 10:28 PM, "Kevin Hawkins" <kevin.s.hawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>Well, I think I can answer my own questions.
>First of all, I now see that there are no tickets on which there are
>comments; rather, initial postings are themselves comments.  Second of
>all, the system reassigns from Nettie to you when you submit.  Weird.
>On 5/15/13 10:12 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> Hi Jeff, to clarify ...
>> On 5/15/13 4:15 PM, Beck, Jeff (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [E] wrote:
>>> Friends,
>>> Good news!  We now have a way to collect comments on NISO Z39.96-2012
>>> JATS through a comment form on the NISO page:
>>> Please make any comments or suggestions on the Standard or on the
>>> supporting materials (the schemas and Tag Libraries available at
>>> through this form.
>> I notice that this link creates a new ticket (or whatever it's called in
>> this Kavi system) authored by Nettie instead of by the person
>> submitting.  Is that intentional (or, more likely, a necessary evil due
>> to the permissions settings)?  Just want to make sure you didn't send
>> the wrong link, or otherwise configure the system in a way not intended.
>> --Kevin

Current Thread