RE: [niso-sts] Tagging Standard that will be Adopted

[Ivan Salcedo <Ivan.Salcedo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

An interesting question indeed, and if you'll forgive some New Year musing (no practical help, I'm afraid)....

Gerrit's answer works, in the sense that one could point a machine or human reader at further information, but how well it answers the original question depends on whether the original intent is informative or restrictive.

'Adoption' is a specific process that will vary from adopting body to adopting body. It _usually_ involves a policy of either no modification or extension, but will always come with a transfer of copyright to the adopting body for the new document. At present we (in NISO STS) can infer an adoption has taken place by the presence of various elements (now, most obiously the adoption element itself), but the root document (by definition) is not altered to reflect that it has been adopted _at all_, let alone the myriad versions under which it may now appear. This in turn leads to business opportunities for things like Perinorm.

Further we can describe the licence terms for this document (as Gerrit describes) but there is no sense of (needing to) nominate who has the right to create a derivate work ('adoption'). I don't think I've seen this in other forms of publishing either. The derived work would usually acknowledge the original in some form. There is usually some text in the scope to explain the origin of a standard - but I don't think we've gone as far as encoding this as metadata (eg BS 5750 was adopted as ISO 9001, which in the convoluted world of agreements between bodies means that BS 5750 was withdrawn and re-emerged as BS EN ISO 9001 (there's your Vienna agreement impact....)

Regards,
Ivan



-----Original Message-----
From: Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex gerrit.imsieke@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:niso-sts-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 02 January 2018 22:25
To: niso-sts-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [niso-sts] Tagging Standard that will be Adopted



On 02/01/2018 23:13, Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex gerrit.imsieke@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The Vienna Agreement [2] is one of the most important out-of-line 
> documents in this context.

By “out-of-line” I don’t want to say that the Vienna Agreement is kind of weird. I just wanted to convey that its provisions are not encoded inline (in the standard documents).

Maybe “out-of-band” would be a more appropriate expression here. Sorry, Vienna Agreement…
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
NISO STS Discussion Mailing list by Mulberry Technologies, Inc.
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/niso-sts-list/3020275
or by email: niso-sts-list-unsub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--~--

________________________________________________________________________

Visit the BSI website at www.bsigroup.com

This email may contain confidential information and/or copyright
material. This email is intended for the use of the addressee only.
Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email
by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the
reply facility in your email software.

The British Standards Institution is incorporated by Royal Charter.

This email has been scanned for all known viruses.