Comments on: Persistent Identifiers–New standard up for ballot http://litablog.org/2009/09/persistent-identifiers-new-standard-up-for-ballot/ Library and Information Technology Association Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:19:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Cindy Hepfer http://litablog.org/2009/09/persistent-identifiers-new-standard-up-for-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-219321 Cindy Hepfer Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:24:09 +0000 http://litablog.org/?p=1698#comment-219321 Peter, I would be happy to send you a copy, as long as you indicate that you are an ALA member, so that you can determine relevancy for yourself. As for the content of the draft, commenting on that is most definitely "over my head," for many reasons, including the mush of words. Contact me at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu if you want a copy. Cindy Peter, I would be happy to send you a copy, as long as you indicate that you are an ALA member, so that you can determine relevancy for yourself. As for the content of the draft, commenting on that is most definitely “over my head,” for many reasons, including the mush of words. Contact me at HSLcindy@buffalo.edu if you want a copy. Cindy

]]> By: Peter Murray http://litablog.org/2009/09/persistent-identifiers-new-standard-up-for-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-219039 Peter Murray Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:35:36 +0000 http://litablog.org/?p=1698#comment-219039 I think I might be interested, but it is hard to tell. Mention of DOI, ARK and PURL certainly seems to make it relevant to our community, but I am really finding it hard to sort out the meaning behind the mush of words used to describe ISO/DIS 24619 specifically and ISO/TC 37/SC 4 in general. This description of the latter comes from the <a href="http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=1160801" rel="nofollow">TC business plan</a> (page 4): <blockquote>The research areas of ISO/TC 37/SC 4 include computational linguistics, computerized lexicography, and language engineering. Language resources consist of contents represented by linguistic data in various formats (e.g., speech data, written text corpora, general language lexical corpora). Text corpora, lexica, ontologies and terminologies are typical instances of language resources to be used for language and knowledge engineering. In both monolingual and multilingual environments, language resources play a crucial role in preparing, processing and managing the information and knowledge needed by computers as well as humans. With a view to mobile computing and dynamic information flow, the availability of language resources and information content, which must be considered as multilingual, multimedia and multimodal from the outset, will be one of the key success factors.</blockquote> Is it appropriate to request a review copy just to determine if it is in-scope for our work? I think I might be interested, but it is hard to tell. Mention of DOI, ARK and PURL certainly seems to make it relevant to our community, but I am really finding it hard to sort out the meaning behind the mush of words used to describe ISO/DIS 24619 specifically and ISO/TC 37/SC 4 in general. This description of the latter comes from the TC business plan (page 4):
The research areas of ISO/TC 37/SC 4 include computational linguistics, computerized lexicography, and language engineering. Language resources consist of contents represented by linguistic data in various formats (e.g., speech data, written text corpora, general language lexical corpora). Text corpora, lexica, ontologies and terminologies are typical instances of language resources to be used for language and knowledge engineering. In both monolingual and multilingual environments, language resources play a crucial role in preparing, processing and managing the information and knowledge needed by computers as well as humans. With a view to mobile computing and dynamic information flow, the availability of language resources and information content, which must be considered as multilingual, multimedia and multimodal from the outset, will be one of the key success factors.

Is it appropriate to request a review copy just to determine if it is in-scope for our work?

]]>