Comment Details - National Information Standards Organization

#00128 Comment Details - RP-12-201x_Physical Delivery_draft_for_public_comment_final.pdf

Document Information
Title	NISO RP-12-201x, Physical Delivery of Library Resources (draft for public comment)
File Name	RP-12-201x_Physical Delivery_draft_for_public_comment_final.pdf	State	Final
Date Added	2011-07-07 13:54:17	Revision Number	0
Submitter Name	Cynthia Hodgson	Size	908K

Comment Information
Summary	Recommended Practices vs. Available Options	State (Disposition)	New (Unresolved)
Date Added	2011-08-10 12:55:36	Last Updated	2011-08-10 12:55:36
Submitter Name	Ian Bogus	Assigned To	Unassigned
Company Name	University of Pennsylvania Libraries	Response	None
Interest Category		Category	N/A
Origin	Public Review	Section, Page, Line
Item		Item Description

Submitter Comment
Sent on behalf of the Preservation Standards and Practices Committee, ALCTS-PARS Most of this standard describes good delivery practice in a clear and concise way. There are a couple sections that seem to deviate from a recommended practice to a discussion on the available practices. Sections 4.2 & 4.3 include tables with six available options for affixing labels to and packaging materials respectively. Some of these options are downplayed in the text itself as relatively poor choices. To be effective as a “recommended practice” the options should be narrowed to only the choices that really are recommended. It is also unclear how the order of most to least recommended was determined. For example, rubber banding is listed as “low” in all three categories for affixing labels, but it is below thermal paper flags that are rated worst in all three categories.

Submitter Comment

Sent on behalf of the Preservation Standards and Practices Committee, ALCTS-PARS

Most of this standard describes good delivery practice in a clear and concise way. There are a couple sections that seem to deviate from a recommended practice to a discussion on the available practices.

Sections 4.2 & 4.3 include tables with six available options for affixing labels to and packaging materials respectively. Some of these options are downplayed in the text itself as relatively poor choices. To be effective as a “recommended practice” the options should be narrowed to only the choices that really are recommended. It is also unclear how the order of most to least recommended was determined. For example, rubber banding is listed as “low” in all three categories for affixing labels, but it is below thermal paper flags that are rated worst in all three categories.