National Standard as a Result of Collective Scientific and Methodological Work

Abstract

This paper summarizes the results of the discussion of GOST R 7.0.108-2022 SIBID Bibliographic references to electronic documents posted in information and telecommunication networks. General requirements for compilation and design. Certain examples demonstrate the success of the collective efforts of the professional community to significantly improve the content, terminology, and methodological tools of the standard. It is noted that common problems of the SIBID in the field of terminology and uniformity of methodological recommendations were disclosed as a result of the discussion of this document.

INTRODUCTION

The developed GOST R 7.0.108-2022 SIBID “Bibliographic References to Electronic Documents Posted in Information and Telecommunication Networks. General Requirements for Compilation and Design” [1] first entered into force on June 1, 2022. The standard was prepared by leading organizations in the field of information, bibliographic, and publishing activities: the Institute for Scientific Information in Social Sciences (INION) of the RAS, the All-Russian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (VINITI) of the RAS, the Russian National Library (RNL), and the Russian Book Chamber (RBCh). The group of authors also includes those organizations that took an active part in its finalization, sending not only comments but also a large number of specific proposals. Note that the working group received about 120 comments and suggestions on the draft standard. Almost 90% of them were accepted and taken into account.

The reviewers of the first edition of GOST R 7.0.108-2022 were not only libraries but also representatives of the publishing complex. We especially note the active participation of those to whom this standard is addressed: research institutes and higher educational institutions. We draw attention to the responses received from organizations with collective membership—these are the Interregional Cataloging Committee (ICC) and the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP). The draft standard was actively discussed at various scientific and methodological events (INION RAS Seminar, Congress of the Russian Library Association, III International Bibliographic Congress, etc.), and this made it possible to discuss the most complex provisions in a direct dialogue.

CONTENT OF GOST R 7.0.108-2022

The emergence of a new standard that proposes a methodology for compiling a bibliographic link to electronic documents posted in information and telecommunication networks is currently relevant for our professional community, as the Russian State Children’s Library (RSChL) believes. The specialists of this library assessed the importance of GOST R 7.0.108-2022 in the context of the formation of the National Bibliographic Resource, for which it is important to update the standards governing an important area of library activity, such as cataloging and bibliography. The diversity of the document flow and the electronic and network resources has long required deeper study of the rules of bibliographic description.

In the opinion of the Russian State Library of Arts (RSLA), this document must be, first of all, a working tool for practical use in creating bibliographic references. The standard includes developed rules for the design of a bibliographic description for electronic documents and resources in general that are not included in other bibliographic standards: research data, an integrated electronic document and its component (messages and responses to them in social networks, chats and forums, on feeds news, and so on), which increases its relevance. The Russian State Library (RSL) notes that the document contains detailed and specific explanations for compiling descriptions and multiple examples of making bibliographic references in a logical sequence.

The most critical attitude to the content of the first edition of the standard was expressed by the Central Scientific Agricultural Library (CSAL), which considers it to be a compilation of the provisions of the current standards GOST R 7.0.5, GOST 7.82, and GOST R 7.0.100 with the addition of insufficiently substantiated provisions on the need for standardization for citation messages and responses in social networks and other communication resources. The developers of the standard paid full attention to this position and, in making the final version, they tried, on the one hand, to reveal the features of compiling a bibliographic reference to electronic documents of various types in more detail and, on the other hand, to remove the duplication of items related to the general bibliography methodology. At the same time, taking into account the possible need for more complete information, the text of the standard gives references to the basic standards, such as, for example:

A bibliographic reference is made to an electronic resource (document) as a whole or to its component part (a document that is an integral part of an electronic resource) and contains the title of a bibliographic entry in accordance with GOST 7.80 and a bibliographic description in accordance with GOST 7.0.100 ([1], p. 5.1).

The completion of GOST R 7.0.108-2022 has become the subject of active discussion. Many authors have faced the problems associated with the inclusion of electronic publications in the information field. Accordingly, representatives of the scientific and library information community are waiting for a solution. For example, the RSLA would like to obtain clarification on the methodology for sequencing primary and secondary references. In turn, the Department of History of the INION RAS proposes to add a separate clause on permalinks to web documents to the standard, referring to the example of Wikipedia, where there is a special permalink in a simple format for each article.

Agreeing with the need to resolve these and many other problems, we would like to draw attention to the fact that GOST R 7.0.108-2022 is called “Bibliographic References to Electronic Documents Posted in Information and Telecommunication Networks. General Requirements for Compiling and Design” and, accordingly, its scope of action is limited by the method for forming the text of a bibliographic reference. In addition, not all operations, even those that are very relevant for scientific communications, can be standardized. Actions such as URL shortening, automatic generation of a list of used literature, borrowing of a “built-in” link, and much more depend on the specific programs installed on a personal computer.

The developers of the standard had to pass through a narrow corridor—on the one hand, it is necessary not to overload the standard (addressed not to bibliographers, but to the authors of publications) with redundant rules that are difficult to understand, but, on the other hand, the necessary and sufficient elements of a bibliographic description for unambiguous identification of objects of a bibliographic reference must be given. This was not achieved immediately. In particular, the comments received from the RSL say that some information proposed in the first edition of GOST R 7.0.108-2022 is redundant for authors and editors. The CSAL pointed out, on the one hand, the overload of information for compiling a bibliographic reference and, on the other hand, the unresolved task of determining the necessary and sufficient set of bibliographic information about a cited or referenced document.

These and other comments contributed to changing the structure and content of the standard, which consists of three substantive sections in the final version (there were six sections in the first version). Agreeing with the comments received that the section taking account of the types of bibliographic references does not contain useful information (RIA Novosti, CSAL, ASEP), it was excluded from the final version of the standard, and its main provisions are reflected in the section “General rules for compiling bibliographic references to electronic documents” ([1], section 4). A separate section is formed by the “General rules for compiling bibliographic references to electronic documents,” which gives a general methodology for the formation of a bibliographic reference in a simplified form ([1], section 5). The specification of the methodology for the formation of bibliographic references to certain types of electronic documents with many examples is contained in the section “Peculiarities of compiling bibliographic references to certain types of electronic documents” ([1], section 6).

GOST R 7.0.108-2022 is interconnected with the SIBID bibliographic standards listed in the “Normative references” section ([1], section 2). The greatest concern of professionals was aroused by the question of the consistency of the provisions of the main bibliographic standards. The specialists of the RSL rightly believe that the peculiarity of the modern practice of using both analog and electronic information resources determines their mixed citation and mention in scientific and other publications. At the same time, the Russian library and bibliographic community faces the following dilemma: which standard must be used for compiling references (especially in the form of off-text lists): GOST R 7.0.5 SIBID “Bibliographic Reference. General Requirements and Rules for Compiling” or GOST R 7.0.100 SIBID “Bibliographic Record. Bibliographic Description. General Requirements and Rules for Compiling.” Representatives of “RIA Novosti” pointed out the need to separately explain the relationship between the provisions of GOST R 7.0.108-2022 and the norms of the standard for the bibliographic reference as a whole. We should clarify that GOST R 7.0.108-2022 is an addition and development of GOST R 7.0.5-2008 [2], which does not include types and forms of network electronic documents that are potential citation objects. In turn, GOST 7.0.108-2022 does not consider electronic publications on separate media, for example, CDs, since they are present in the current GOST R 7.0.5-2008.

TERMINOLOGICAL FIELD OF GOST R 7.0.108-2022

Quite expectedly, an active discussion on terminology began, in which three main topics emerged: what terms are necessary for this standard, how to deal with outdated terminology, and what terms are basic for the digital environment.

In an effort to make the text of the standard as clear as possible for users, the developers of GOST R 7.0.108-2022 proposed the disclosure of terms such as “work,” “conditional page of an electronic document,” and “electronic object” in the first version. However, according to the well-founded comments of the ICC, CSAL, and other colleagues, the terminology was reduced. The final version retained the term “mark of prescribed punctuation” (“A sign that does not carry a grammatical load, separates or encloses areas and elements of a bibliographic description” ([1], p. 3.3), although the ICC considered it to be universally accepted, general bibliographic and redundant for this standard. We proceed from the fact that GOST R 7.0.108-2022 is not addressed to professionals in the field of bibliography, but to authors of publications (note that the title of the standard does not limit these publications exclusively to genres of scientific literature), for whom this term is absolutely incomprehensible and therefore requires disclosure. The expediency of including this term in the standard was considered at the III International Bibliographic Congress (Novosibirsk, April 27–30, 2022).

The CSAL expressed the opinion that the use of the concept of “conditional page of an electronic document” (“A logically defined block of information in an electronic document that visually corresponds to a page of an analog document is used when making a citation in the absence of pagination in the cited document”) is almost not feasible, as it is difficult to visually determine this due to different characteristics of devices (computer or smartphone), different browsers, etc. This argument was taken into account, and the final version of GOST R 7.0.108-2022 does not provide for filling the lack of pagination.

There were also proposals to expand the terminological section by including terms such as “electronic publication” (rejected on the grounds that this concept is not used in the text of GOST R 7.0.108-2022) and “information and communication networks” (ICN), which was also not accepted, since the term found its justification in the current legislation: “information and telecommunications network is a technological system designed to transmit information over communication lines, which is accessed using computer technology.”1 The proposal of the ASEP to include the concept of “online publication” in the standard was also rejected. We agree that, despite the wide distribution and absolute clarity, this term is slang, does not have an unambiguous definition, and therefore it cannot be included in the official publication, which the national standard is.

In a number of cases, the reviewers suggested more successful formulations of the terms and their definitions; in particular, at the suggestion of scientists (Department of History of the INION RAS), the term “site main panel” was replaced by the term “site main page.” Several definitions were put forward for the term “integrable document (resource),” including:

• “A resource that is modified by updates—additions, deletions, replacements, relocations of text, data, pages, etc., that are not published separately but are merged with an existing resource and become a new whole” (ICC);

• “A document that is a collection of individual messages logically linked to each other either by a common topic (an encyclopedia) or by a common work (an article and comments on it in social networks)” (CSAL).

As a result of numerous approvals, a conventional definition was included in the text of the standard: “an integrable document: An electronic object formed by adding information blocks that together form a single semantic whole” ([1], p. 3.4).

Analyzing the term “analogue document,” representatives of the scientific community pointed out that analog technologies are not limited to printing production, but are also used in sound recording, in telephone transmission, etc. (Department of History of the INION RAS). We absolutely agree that it is more correct to use a pair analogue-digital, however, the term “electronic document” is included in many SIBID standards (another evidence of the necessary modernization of the terminological system). In turn, the term “analog” is internationally accepted (for example, it is used by ISO 690:2010 Information and documentation—Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources); it has already been included in a number of SIBID standards. Specialists in bibliography have no objections. The conventions and boundaries of the application of this term are clear, but in this case, we are talking about printed documents (publications), which are analog. I note that, in my opinion, it would be most correct to speak not about an analog or digital (electronic) document, but about an analog or digital form of a document. Perhaps this position will be reflected in the standards over time.

As always, there were active debates about the relationship between the concepts of “document” and “resource.” The use of the term “resource” as the main one is advocated by the ICC and CSAL that appeal to its international application. However, we will turn to logic. Here is a detailed definition from the Great Russian Encyclopedia: “Information resources are information (text, graphics, audio, video, etc.) that is presented in a form designed for storage (electronic and paper documents, books, films, etc.), accumulation, processing and presenting to users whose activities are related to construction and application of knowledge (in science, education, economics, etc.).” The Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Information, Informatization and Protection of Information” as of 20.2.1995 defines information resources as “individual documents and individual arrays of documents, documents, and arrays of documents in information systems (libraries, archives, funds, data banks, other information systems)” [3]. This ambiguity (both documents and their arrays) is unacceptable for a technological standard that considers specific types of electronic documents (articles, patents, standards, etc.) and resources (websites, portals) on which they are posted (sources of publication). Here is a simple example: an article from a journal, the journal itself, and the portal where this journal is posted can be an information resource. At the same time, the URL of an article differs from the URL of a journal, which, in turn, is not identical to the URL of the portal where the journal is available:

Website of the Russian Academy of Sciences—http://www.ras.ru/index.aspx

Page of the journal Science in Siberia on the website of the Russian Academy of Sciences— http://www.ras.ru/news/shownews.aspx?id=8bc5026b-55ab-46a0-9942-821ea2c29e8f#content

Site of the journal Science in Siberia—https://www.sbras.info/

Article “Siberian scientists created an apparatus for determining COVID-19 by exhalation” from the journal Science in Siberia—https://www.sbras.info/ news/sibirskie-uchenye-sozdali-apparat-opredeleniya-covid-19-po-vydokhu.

However, in relation to social networks, the use of the term resource (if we regard this as the previously used concept of source of information) seems to me quite legitimate. It’s hard to argue with the ASEP’s opinion that the chat line must not be considered as a separate document—it is part of an integrated document (by definition). This opinion is also shared by the Department of History of the INION RAS. Probably, in this particular case, we could go this way, which would inevitably introduce confusion into the standard—in most cases we are talking about a document and only in one case about a resource. It is obvious that technological standards sometimes must sacrifice theoretically correct constructs in order to preserve the logic of the presentation of a particular process. As a result, the method of compiling a bibliographic description of a review was applied to remarks in social networks, for example:

Zharkov, N. The army and navy will be protected, but we need to work to become self-sufficient: commentary on the video file “Former intelligence officer Andrey Bezrukov: Coronavirus as a signal to change the rules of the game,” Life: TV channel. 00:25:56 (play time). https://zen.yandex.ru/media/ telekanalzhizn/eksrazvedchik-andrei-bezrukov-koronavirus-kak-signal-k-smene-pravil-igry-5ee3ba26cb-aefd1e5da66a04. Publication date: 12.07.2021. ([1], p. 6.8).

Regarding the main subject (resource-document), not wanting to get involved in endless discussions, the developers of the standard decided to rely on the neutral term “object of a bibliographic reference,” which is understood simply as a cited or referenced document ([1], p. 3.6). This decision was supported by the Section “Regulatory Support for Bibliography of Electronic Resources of Network and Remote Access” of the III International Bibliographic Congress and the “RIA Novosti” team. GOST R 7.0.108-2022 strictly defines that a bibliographic reference object is identified by its URL.

The discussion of the terminology of the considered technological standard revealed the general problem of SIBID: the obsolescence of a large number of standards and, accordingly, the terminology enshrined in them. For example, the RSL expressed a strong desire to clarify the definition of the term “multimedia document,” rightly pointing out that the document cannot be defined through the term “publication.” However, GOST R 7.0.108-2022 used (as provided for by the standardization rules) the definition from the specialized GOST R 7.0.83-2013 for electronic publications [4]. Many organizations have expressed dissatisfaction with the definition of an electronic document (“A document in digital form, the creation and use of which requires computer equipment or other specialized devices for reproducing text, sound, images” ([1], p. 3.10), which is enshrined in an earlier national standard, GOST R 7.0.95-2015 [5]. This standard, in turn, took this definition from GOST R 7.0.83-2013 [4]. Academic commitment to accuracy was demonstrated by the Department of History of the INION RAS, which found that an electronic document can also be analog if it is a tape recording or a videocassette.

Of course, both the comments and proposed specific definitions allowed us to improve the terminology section of GOST R 7.0.108-2022. However, it should be noted that the methodological base of bibliography studies in general lags behind the development of information and computer terminology, which already directly affects the quality of preparing regulatory documents.

METHODOLOGY FOR FORMING A BIBLIOGRAPHIC LINK TO ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

With regard to the proposed method for forming a bibliographic link to electronic documents, we will not focus on particulars (despite their undoubted significance) such as spacing rules, the use of site abbreviations as headings, italic designation of authors’ names, the place of the serial number of the standard, etc. This is understandable only to professionals who have shown close attention and made every effort to eliminate the shortcomings of the first edition of GOST R 7.0.108-2022.

Let us dwell on what are in my opinion more general discussion issues, including, for example, a discussion of the methodology for determining the status of an electronic document: published, unpublished, distributed by subscription, etc. The response of the ASEP draws attention to the fact that documents for official use can be published (if they are intended for a certain category of users) and simultaneously be in limited access. As a result, we removed the mention of the fact of publication from the text of the standard, and simply proposed the option of making a link to electronic documents with special access modes: notes on the access mode are given in links to citation objects that have special conditions of use and determine the possibility of re-access, for example, “on a contractual basis,” “by subscription,” “under special conditions in the owner’s local network” ([1], p. 5.3.5). For example:

Vasilkov, A.V., Grigorieva, A.P. Security and access control in information systems // Information technologies: scientific-technical journal: electr. version. 2021. vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 227–234. URL: https://www.novtex.ru/T. Publication date: 14.05.2016. Access mode: for registered users.

The desire to give a bibliographic methodology for documents, even those that do not have free access, is due to the need to expand the number of possible objects of bibliographic reference for their inclusion in the information and scientific-communicative space. If the location of the linked object is known, then it can be accessed again, following the relevant access conditions.

In the first edition, GOST R 7.0.108-2022 contained a clause related to quoting and mentioning e-mails. The compliers of the standard really wanted to include this genre of literature in the information space, as correspondence often contains very important information that is not repeated in any publication. It was proposed to give a link to an e-mail if it was possible for a third party to repeatedly return to refer to it. However, by the majority of opinions, including collective consideration at the Section on Bibliography and Information and Bibliographic Services of the XXV All-Russian Library Congress (Petrozavodsk, 2021), this section was excluded. The compilers of the standard listened to the authoritative opinion of the specialists of the CSAL who indicated that a bibliographic link to an e-mail is drawn up according to the general rules for an author’s work with the obligatory indication of the author’s name (in the title of the entry), the first lines of a letter or subject (as the main title), the type of document with addressee’s name “e-mail” (in the information relating to the main title), access mode. They supported their opinion with convincing examples:

Domnikova T.I. [Please add to the official website]: electronic letter dated 07.10.2020 to Sokolov S.V., Access mode: from personal computer of S.V. Sokolov;

Ivanov I.I. [About the meeting of the Academic Council]: electronic letter dated 04.05.2020 to Petrov O.Yu., Access mode: from personal computer of O.Yu. Petrov.

I am very sorry that this methodological decision and the examples given were left outside the text of GOST R 7.0.108-2022.

The meetings of the XXV All-Russian Library Congress draw attention to the complex structure of multimedia documents and the need to provide tools for citing information expressed in various sign forms. This was implemented in the final version of the standard, which offered a differentiated approach to referring to a multimedia document as a whole and quoting its fragments in each individual character segment, for example:

History of the Great Steppe—all issues/ethnographer Konstantin Kuksin tells. Multimedia document. 03:11:58 (play time). URL: https://ok.ru/video/ 1304989536739/ (date of access: 28.07.2020). Available at: Odnoklassniki.ru: website.

Turkic Khaganate/the ethnographer Konstantin Kuksin tells. Multimedia document. Play time: 00:01:07-00:36:42. URL: https://ok.ru/video/ 1304989536739/ (date of access: 28.07.2020). Available at: Odnoklassniki.ru: website ([1], p. 6.10.5).

This approach partially answers RIA Novosti’s doubts about the advisability of separately considering quoting and mentioning the object of reference on the grounds that in both cases, the bibliographic information that is necessary to identify and search for the source of information is given by the same rules. Based on the example of a multimedia document, we see that this differentiation is not only quite expedient but also necessary. Quotations are made indicating not only the total number of pages but also the location of the quoted phrase, not only the total sounding time of the audio document, but also the interval of the quoted fragment, and so on.

Innovations in the electronic space, especially in its documented part, must be taken into account in the regulatory framework of a specialized nature. However, these innovations and the limits of their application must be understood before the time comes for their standardization. Specifically, we will consider DOI (digital object identifier). Fortunately, none of the professionals made a radical proposal to completely replace the bibliographic description of the referenced object with its DOI during the discussion. However, the ASEP and RSL believe that if it is present, the URL must be omitted from the link. This issue was also discussed at the III International Bibliographic Congress. As a result (including relying on the opinion of the scientific community), the compilers of the standard considered it right to remain within the boundaries of existing practice based on the following reasons. First, a DOI is only affixed to scientific publications, and the objects of bibliographic reference are much more diverse. The introduction of a DOI as the main identifier for a limited range of publications undermines the methodological requirement for a uniform design of bibliographic references in general. Second, the mechanism of functioning and preservation of the document solely on the basis of a DOI is not yet clear to domestic bibliographers, and the standard is addressed specifically for use in the Russian Federation. These fears are quite justified, as the DOI system itself does not always show uniform methodological and technological solutions: to search for bibliographic information (and, accordingly, to identify reference objects), DataCite uses https://search.datacite.org/, and the Crossref system uses https://search. crossref.org/. Thus, GOST R 7.0.108-2022 has kept both identifiers in the bibliographic reference—both DOI and URL. It is important to pay attention to the clarification of “RIA Novosti”—the identifier is the DOI of an electronic publication and not the DOI of the source of a publication (printed article).

Summing up the discussion of essentially methodological recommendations for the design of a bibliographic reference to electronic documents, we are forced to report the lack of a harmonious interaction between bibliographic standards. It is significant that based on a specific example—the design of the title in a different font (italics)—this was illustrated not by professionals, but by representatives of the scientific and educational community (i.e., the target audience of the standard) represented by the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. They noted that GOST 7.0.5-2008 Bibliographic reference. General requirements and compiling rules lacks such requirement for the design of the title, but GOST 7.0.100-2018 Bibliographic record. Bibliographic description. General requirements and rules for compiling allows font design of the title with reference to GOST 7.61 Editions. State (national) bibliographic indexes. General requirements and GOST 7.23 Information publications. Structure and design. No less depressing for us is another detailed example from the review of the Department of History of the INION RAS, which we give almost literally: it is necessary to indicate in the text of the standard more specifically whether the rule of obligatory insertion of the prescribed colon or semicolon with an additional space on the left must be used in references. The proposed project implies an addition to both GOST 7.0.100 and GOST 7.0.5, which, in turn, refers to GOST 7.1 and has not yet been replaced. At the same time, GOST 7.0.100 and GOST 7.1 states that an additional space before the prescribed colon and semicolon is mandatory; GOST 7.0.5 presents no rule in this regard, but there is no additional space in all examples of references.

CONCLUSIONS

The most detailed assessment of the achievement of the tasks set by the new standard was given by the Russian State Library of Arts, whose specialists, having studied the proposed document, believe that it copes with the tasks that were set; this standard

• defines the set of bibliographic information about a cited or referenced electronic document (its component part or group of documents), which is necessary and sufficient for its general characteristics, identification and search;

• establishes the characteristics of certain types of electronic documents, which must be reflected in the bibliographic description when referring to them;

• harmonizes the rules for compiling a bibliographic reference to electronic documents for online distribution in accordance with the current national standards in the field of bibliography, the requirements of the International Standard Bibliographic Description—a consolidated edition of ISBD (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and ISO 690:2010 Information and documentation—Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources.

The staff of the RSLA believes that GOST R 7.0.108-2022 must increase the level of preparation of bibliographic references to electronic documents, including electronic documents that could not previously be included in scientific publications due to the lack of rules for citing or mentioning them.

The specialists of the Russian State Children’s Library note that the project GOST R 7.0.108-2022 in general makes a good impression, thanks to the thoughtful work put into it, when almost all the requirements of bibliographers were taken into account. The standard will make it possible to correctly include in the scientific space links to documents posted on information and telecommunication networks that could not previously be included in scientific publications due to the lack of rules for citing or mentioning them. Thus, we can assume that the developers of the standard have coped with the task that was set.

In turn, we must emphasize that it was the collective creativity of the working group, all participants in public discussions, all attentive and very responsible reviewers that has made it possible to create the final version of the national standard GOST R 7.0.108-2022 SIBID Bibliographic references to electronic documents posted in information and telecommunications networks. General requirements for the preparation and design.

At the same time, the same “collective mind” has identified the existing problems in the SIBID system and, as a result, the need to modernize a whole block of standards. The Russian State Library made a specific proposal to initiate a revision of GOST R 7.0.5-2008 [2] in a new version, where much more space must be given to links to all types of online resources similarly to ISO 690. This question, of course, must be raised on the agenda of TC-191 on Scientific and Technical Information, Librarianship, and Publishing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest.