Both Andy and Pierre seem to have missed my point entirely. Andy in
particular seems to have forgotten that I recently spent 18 months as a
CETIS SIG Coordinator, actively taking part in IMS working groups and
other standards initiatives- I don't need an explanation of how the
standards world works thanks. The profit-making or otherwise of the BSI
or anyone else is not my concern.
My concern now is that, as someone whose current role it is to develop
everything to do with metadata for a major Scottish e-learning project,
I wanted to have a look at this draft standard and give my feedback. The
existence of a "nominal fee" just to see the document is in some ways
even more annoying than having to pay a membership fee- how do I
organise paying them £5 or whatever it is without it costing a lot more
in my time and project admin.? So, I just decided I didn't have time to
faff about with it. That is my point. In my own role as a CETIS
coordinator I made sure that anyone in UK HE/FE had access to draft
specifications if they were keen enough to want to have input- I tried
to take as much of the faffing about out of the process for them, as we
are all very busy. It just seems to me that the BSI is being
unnecessarily bureaucratic and obstructive.
Of course in the time it's taken me to write the original email, read
the responses and write this one, I may well have been able to get hold
of that document. Oh well.
Best
Sarah
Andy Heath wrote:
>> Don't want to shoot the messenger here (I know it's not your decision
>> Ian), but:
>>
>> Lemmee get this straight- we have to /pay /BSI to give them feedback on
>> their standard? What exactly is a "small nominal fee"?
>
>
> All standards bodies have to finance their operations in
> some way. Usually it is vendors and large organisations
> that implement the standard and the fee is nominal
> to them when related to the benefit to them - non-vendors
> reap the benefit for free because of the increased interoperability
> of products. If we took the standard for electric sockets
> in this country and looked at how many people had
> read the standard and compared that with the number
> of people who benefitted from it I think the argument
> would be made.
>
> Its a new world, where anyone can input to standards
> and its going to take some time to get all the business
> models adjusted to that new world. If someone with a
> need to contribute was denied the opporttunity then your
> point may be valid. I assure you that everyone I know
> that works in the standards world does the best they can
> to ensure that people who have valid input to make have
> opportunity to do so whatever their financial conditions.
>
> All the individuals I know who work in standards, whether that be
> in IMS, BSI or CEN-ISSS do not do it in order to make a profit
> but because we feel its valuable work that benefits all and
> its worth putting up with practices that are not ideal in order
> to achieve what the standards achieve. BSI works hard to ensure
> their process is open in my view and deserve congratulations
> for what they achieve.
>
> --
> andy
> _______________________________________________
> Andy Heath
> [log in to unmask]
>
--
*******************************************
Ms. Sarah Currier
Librarian, Stòr Cùram Project
"A Storehouse of Learning Resources for Social Care"
Dept. of Social Work, University of Strathclyde
c/o: Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
Graham Hills Building, 50 George Street
Glasgow G1 1QE, Scotland, United Kingdom
Web: http://storcuram.blogs.com/weblog/
Tel.: +44 (0)141 548 4573 Fax: +44 (0)141 553 2053
E-mail: [log in to unmask] Mob.: +44 (0)7980 855 801
Stòr Cùram is Gaelic for Storehouse of Care
*******************************************
|