First lets recap whats already been on the forums regarding the standards item type:
btw the link to the IEE manual didn't work for me, but this one works: https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/draft/styleman.pdf see chapter 18.2
Although standards have a lot of specific information, for citing we only need the most important things.
So lets just start with the most important fields on the top:
year - this is also often followed with a colon directly by the number, i.e. 10646:2003
well, it could also make sense to include all these four into one field. This might make it much easier!?
title - the title of the standard
long form of the body organization/issuing authority - could also be a company name
i hope i didn't miss a lot, so feel free to comment and make more suggestions :-)
When adding the engineering code type please don't make it too restrictive. There are other standards bodies, the NFPA fire and life codes come to mind. Various levels of government in the USA have their own sets of codes that may be more or less strict.
@dwl-sdca, do you have any examples of how such codes are cited in the literature?
Technically, isn't the document type here a "specification"; rather than a "standard"?
+1 for this feature and the discussion on the forum. One of the biggest difficulties is having the reference display correctly, as many standards have a more common method, eg. ISO standards almost always have a colon than the year of publication, where as UK Def Stans have dashes between the parts being referenced. So maybe a field which simply allows the user to type how they want it to be displayed.
If possible could the references be imported from a website like: http://www.everyspec.com. This may provide some consistency to the many different types of standards.
Sorry as an additional comment, its important that the status of the standard be included. These include:
Draft / Current / Interim / Superseded / Cancelled. There are numerous times which draft or cancelled standards are used in literature.
Has anyone here answered my question above? I really don't think a "standard" type makes sense; what gets standardized, and cited, are specifications.
isn't specification more confusing than it helps, though? People refer to the standard specifications as the "Standard" (what else would the standard be) just the way they refer to patent specifications as the "Patent."
@bdarcus Not sure what prompted the "bump", so I may be missing something. This seems to be a bit of a semantic argument. The MARC Genre Term here would be "standard or specification".
I understand where you're coming from, but think the broader/parent term may be defensible. Some standards bodies differentiate a specification from, e.g., a test method (that you may also want to cite). See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTM_International
I actually agree they're different things, though different standard bodies are not consistent in differentiating them. Many bodies release documents that they do not consider to be "specifications", but are typically cited the same way as a specification produced by the standards body.
It is worth working out abstraction, still. But I probably see it a bit flatter than you: do we need @mmoole's enumeration of the "type or genre" field? It doesn't seem to be in the MARC/MODS model & (probably) doesn't impact citations. But some bodies do record this bit of info.