opoudjis
commented
6 months ago @mico for whatever reason I never got a notification of this.
Your query is about the switch from .2 to -2, right? The random insertion of ISO/IEC before IEEE in one and not the other is just sloppiness: this is an IEEE adoption of an ISO/IEC standard, and IEEE is not saying one is published by IEEE and the other jointly with ISO and IEC.
Clearly IEEE has no consistency, from the discussion you linked to. Ronald's response at the time was not to parse the string at all, and just replicate it, because we can't be seen as fixing up the messes that IEEE make with their identifiers.
In the modelling and parsing, perhaps we should just identify what is a "standards identifier" without splitting parts. It is clear that we cannot know what is a part vs not a part just from the PubID.
If that was the advice in 2022, and IEEE are not providing either clarification, or a mandate for us to fix these, then don't do anything about it.
Artur, I have been very clear in recent weeks that I do not know a thing about IEEE identifier policy, and I am MUCH too busy to do research on this. (In any case, there clearly aren't any rules here being followed by IEEE to research, they are just using delimiters randomly.) I have not been involved in any discussion with IEEE about what you are doing, and without advice from IEEE (including "we don't care"), I think everything you are doing is risky.
If you have no advice from them about what to do here, all you can do is guess based on precedent. The precedent from that ticket is to leave the delimiter as is. So leave the delimiter as is. I have no insight to add to that.
Found the same identifier using different format for different years:
ISO/IEC/IEEE P15026-2/FDIS, May 2022 vs IEEE P15026.2/FDIS, August 2010
Should we do something about it?
Related discussion here: https://github.com/metanorma/pubid-ieee/issues/45#issuecomment-1079607361