Re: [jats-list] Two NISO JATS landing pages?

Subject: Re: [jats-list] Two NISO JATS landing pages?
From: Nettie Lagace <nlagace@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:11:05 -0400

I apologize for any confusion regarding the document numbers.  The documents
are the same.  We'll be deleting document 8977 in favor of 10591 since that's
the one everyone is attaching comments to.  I've updated the labels and
description of the version that has the comments attached to it to make this a
bit more clear, I hope.

The latter document was added
in order to enable submitted comments to be managed by the NISO JATS Standing
Committee (   (Any
comments attached to the document id 8977, if I had enabled this feature,
would not be able to be managed by this group, due to the design limitations
of our content management system. )

I would not term document 10591 an "evolving" document, exactly, as once
comments are discussed by the Standing Committee and progressed to be included
in the ANSI/NISO standard, the standard will be revised pursuant to a
Continuous Maintenance procedure approved by ANSI.  Once the standard is
revised, it will have a new number and not be 1.0 any longer.   NISO would at
that point, update all public links to the documents to make it clear 1.0 has
been superseded.

I'm happy to answer any further questions. (I'm subscribed to JATS-list in the
digest form so I may be a little delayed in replies unless questions are sent
to me directly.)


Nettie Lagace
Associate Director for Programs
National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 302
Baltimore, MD 21211
Mobile: 617-863-0501
Fax: 410-685-5278
E-mail: nlagace@xxxxxxxx

>> The NISO site seems to have duplicate records for the JATS specification,
>> and I'm wondering if anyone on this list can explain it:
>> *
>> rev=jats-sc - uses document ID 8977, and explicitly says "version 1.0",
>> and
>> *
>> brev=jats-sc - uses document ID 10591, and doesn't give a version number
>> The latter one has all the public comments.  Is it supposed to mean that
>> the latter one is an "evolving document"?  If so, it doesn't say that
>> anywhere.  The attached PDFs are identical, but one wouldn't know that
>> without comparing them.
>> I'm concerned that there are two "official landing pages" for the same
>> document, as it seems that it could be a source of confusion.
>> Chris

Current Thread