Hi @ Bruce_D_Arcus1
I totally understand the constraints and appreciate all the work y’all have done.
I also agree that the practical benefits to CSL itself would be fairly minor. Clearly, y’all have a figured out how develop and maintain an impressively comprehensive spec and don’t need help from a government agency, bureaucrats, etc.
So perhaps some additional context may help clarify why I think a collaboration would be helpful…
First, a quick clarification, while many members are bureaucrats / professionals (e.g. working at NLM or ANSI), as far as I know, no one is directly paid for this work. It’s all done for professional development, geekiness, etc.
I myself have recently begun working with NISO committees to help with various publishing standards / recommendations. As a long time user and fan of CSL, I was surprised to discover some (perhaps even many) of these folks were not aware of the CSL spec.
In a recent call, for example, someone mentioned potentially developing a new version of ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005. Given the successful and positive experience I have had using CSL, this suggestion surprised me. “Why would they bother developing a new spec when CSL has all this stuff figured out,” I thought. So part of the benefit would be, simply, to prevent wasted effort and confusingly redundant specifications.
Secondly (and perhaps a little selfishly), I would like to see greater consistency between CSL and NISO standards – especially JATS. For example, the JATS4R folks are currently discussing which values should be allowed for the
publication-type attribute on
<element-citation> elements. Rather than hash this out, I think they ought to use the CSL types. This would significantly improve interoperability between JATS and Citeproc / CSL. Also, it just seems better: again, why define a new list when y’all have already done this work.
But, overall, I think you can close this issue. On my end, I will continue to work with NISO and, to the extent it makes sense, encourage folks to use / learn about the quality work y’all have done. Hopefully, they will be open to my suggestions.
Finally, if they do decide to revamp ANSI/NISO Z39.29-2005, I will vigorously advocate that they consider recommending the CSL spec rather than reinventing the wheel.