From JLS@liverpool.ac.uk Thu Nov 28 14:52:13 1991 Received: from danpost2.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA20849; Thu, 28 Nov 91 14:52:13 +0100 Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by danpost2.uni-c.dk (5.65/1.34) id AA00275; Thu, 28 Nov 91 13:52:20 GMT Message-Id: <9111281352.AA00275@danpost2.uni-c.dk> Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by vm.uni-c.dk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6980; Thu, 28 Nov 91 14:52:08 DNT Received: from UKACRL.BITNET by vm.uni-c.dk (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6971; Thu, 28 Nov 91 14:52:06 DNT Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0723; Thu, 28 Nov 91 13:51:23 GMT Received: from RL.IB by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4611; Thu, 28 Nov 91 13:51:22 GMT Via: UK.AC.LIV.IBM; 28 NOV 91 13:51:16 GMT Received: from JLS@UK.AC.LIVERPOOL by MAILER(4.2.a); 28 Nov 1991 13:50:19 GM Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 13:11:27 GMT From: Lawrie Schonfelder Subject: Corrigenda and ammendment To: SC22/WG5 members , SC22 members X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Dear All, in reports of the SC22 meeting it has been said that ISO, or at least SC22, had no procedure for handling corrections and clarifications (interpretations) to existing standards. I find this a strange comment. Section 6.13 of the JTC1 directives 1990 is precisely about such activities. Section 6.13.1 defines both a corrigendum and an ammendment. "A technical corrigendum is issued to correct a technical error or ambiguity in an international standard, inadvertently introduced either in drafting or in printing and which could lead to incorrect or unsafe application of the international standard." "An amendment alters and/or adds to previously agreed technical provisions in existing international standards." Both corrigenda and amendments have procedures for rapid publication defined albeit loosely in the case of corrigenda in the remainder of Section 6.13. It appears to me that this section of the directives is aimed precisely at dealing with this maintenance activity. Have these directives been changed and I have missed it, or was there some confusion on this issue at the SC22 meeting. Can someone enlighten me. Lawrie