(URGENT) Unable to fetch IEC 80000

[ronaldtse]

This is from annotated-express.

[relaton-iec] WARNING: no match found online for IEC 80000. The code must be exactly like it is on the standards website.
[relaton-iec] If you wanted to cite all document parts for the reference, use "IEC 80000 (all parts)".
If the document is not a standard, use its document type abbreviation (TS, TR, PAS, Guide).

Interestingly, the ISO/IEC 80000 series contains two types of documents:

• ISO 80000: led by ISO, co-work with IEC
• IEC 80000: led by IEC, co-work with ISO

IEC Webstore

So maybe we need some special way of citing it because ISO/IEC 80000 is an important document.

[ronaldtse]

I have also sought clarification from IEC on the best way to cite IEC 80000.

---

It is clear that independent documents are cited as say, “IEC 80000-13”, but to cite the series, I have seen citations that write these:

• ISO/IEC 80000 series
• IEC 80000 series
• ISO 80000 series

I remember you also wrote up some guidance in previous communication, quote:

"“ISO/IEC” originator in docidentifier for standards for which some parts are under ISO lead and others under IEC lead (this excludes JTC 1 standards for which the number is provided by the publishing org): docnumbers 80000 to 89999 – e.g. ISO 80000 and IEC 80000 series, ISO 80004 and IEC 80004 series”

In most cases when I see people refer to 80000 in the "Normative references" clause, they have “IEC 80000” and “ISO 80000” as separate entries.

What is the desired practice in citing this series?

[ronaldtse]

This is currently blocking https://github.com/metanorma/annotated-express/issues/48.

@andrew2net can you help proceed with this? Thanks.

[andrew2net]

[relaton-iec] If you wanted to cite all document parts for the reference, use "IEC 80000 (all parts)".

@ronaldtse we have added this warning in #32. Do we need to change the behavior for IEC/ISO 80000 only?

[ronaldtse]

@andrew2net ah, you are right. Not sure what I was thinking.

Regarding official guidance for citing ISO/IEC 80000, we are still pending a response from IEC, we'll see what do to then.

[andrew2net]

@ronaldtse should we handle ISO/IEC 80000 reference as IEC 80000 (all parts) ?

[ronaldtse]

Let's wait for IEC's reply.

It's funny because ISO/IEC 80000 is actually made up of ISO 80000-X and IEC 80000-Y. I've seen documents that cite ISO 80000 series vs IEC 80000 series vs ISO/IEC 80000 series.

[ronaldtse]

Just asked again on this. I suspect that we should do this:

• ISO/IEC 80000 or IEC/ISO 80000 should be ISO/IEC 80000 (all parts) or IEC/ISO 80000 (all parts).
• ISO 80000 should be ISO 80000 (all parts)
• IEC 80000 should be IEC 80000 (all parts)

[ronaldtse]

We finally have the ultimate clarification from Jo Goodwin of IEC:

The correct forms are:

• inline references:
  • “IEC 80000 series and ISO 80000 series”
  • "the ISO and IEC 80000 series”
• individual references must be made separately:
  • “IEC 80000 (all parts)”
  • “ISO 80000 (all parts)”

We should never cite ISO/IEC 80000 (all parts) because the documents in the 80000 series have only one originator.

So it's either:

* IEC 80000 (all parts)

or

* ISO 80000 (all parts)

or

* ISO 80000 (all parts)
* IEC 80000 (all parts)

The ISO/IEC DIR 2 keeps both IEC 80000 series and ISO 80000 series separate in normative references.