Personal tools
You are here: Home Standards Process FGDC Standards Directives Directive #2b, Standards Working Group Review Guidelines: Review Criteria/Checklist
Document Actions

Directive #2b, Standards Working Group Review Guidelines: Review Criteria/Checklist

Following is an outline of the criteria used by the Standards Working Group in the review of (1) standards proposals, (2) committee draft standards prior to public review, and (3) proposed standards prior to final FGDC endorsement. Reviews by the Standards Working Group take place at steps 2, 6, and 10 of the FGDC standards development process. The process by which the SWG reviews documents is listed in Directive #2a, SWG Review Process.

1. Checklist For The Review of A Standards Proposal (Step 2)

1. Evaluate the following parts of the proposal:

Title: Does the title clearly and adequately describe the project?
Date of Proposal: Is there a submission date?
Type of Standard: Is the type of standard identified?
Submitting organization: Is the submitting organization identified?
Point of Contact: Is a point of contact identified?
Objectives: Is the purpose clearly stated and is this an appropriate FGDC project?
Scope: Is the scope clearly defined and reasonable for this standard?
Justification/benefits: Is there adequate justification for this project?
Development approach: Is the approach sound?
Related Standards: If related standards or related standards projects exist, are there overlap issues that need to be resolved, or is there a need to coordinate with other standards projects? If an existing standard is being moved forward for adoption or is being modified for adoption, is the original standard identified?
Development and completion schedule: Is schedule reasonable?
Resources required: Does the proposal identify adequate resources to carry out the project?
Potential participants: Are participants and lead organization identified? Is participation broadly based?
Other Targeted Authorization Bodies: Are targeted standards bodies appropriate for this standard. Where is the most appropriate place for development of the standard?

2. Is the standard independent of technology?

3. Can the standard be implemented with known or future technology?

4. Is the proposal presented in a clear and understandable way?

5. Are there any questions that need to be answered or clarifications required before approval?

6. Do you approve of this standards proposal? Explain reason for approving or not approving project.

7. If proposal is approved, which FGDC Subcommittee or Working Group should be assigned sponsorship of the project? If a new FGDC sponsor group is identified, please justify.

 

2. Checklist For Pre-Public Review of A Standard Prior to Public Review(Step 6)

1. Evaluate the following parts of the standard:

Title: Does the title clearly and adequately describe the project?
Title page: Does the title page conform to the FGDC format?
Table of contents: Is there a table of contents and does it correctly identify the contents? Introductory material:

Objectives: Is the purpose of the standard clearly stated?

Scope: Is the scope clearly defined? Is it clear what is within and not within the scope of the standard?

Applicability and intended uses of standard: Is it clear who should use the standard and for what applications?

Description of relationship to existing standards if applicable: If there are related standards, are they identified and the relationship explained?

Description of the development process: Is there a brief description that adequately describes the process by which the standard was developed (including meetings held, participants, etc.)? Is the basis for the standard identified, for example is this an existing standard, a modification of an existing standard or a new standard?

Identification of participants: Are the participating organizations identified? Individual names may or may not be included in the draft.

Maintenance of the Standard: Is the maintenance authority for the standard identified? If a maintenance strategy is described, is it understandable, reasonable, and does it follow FGDC guidelines?

Body of the standard: Is the standard clearly organized and presented in an understandable manner? Does the Standard follow format guidelines in the FGDC Standards Reference Model?
References: Is there a reference section and does it conform to FGDC format requirements?
Appendices/Annexes: Is it clear whether these informative (not part of what is being standardized) or normative (part of what is being standardized)?

 

2. Are any editorial corrections required?

3. Does the Standard reflect the requirements of the original proposal?

4. Is the standard independent of technology?

5. Can the standard be implemented with known or future technology?

6. Are there other similar standards available or are there other related standards development efforts going on? If so, are there overlap issues that need to be resolved, or is there a need to coordinate with other standards projects?

7. Are there any question that need to be answered or clarifications required before approval?

8. Do you approve release of this standard for public review? Explain reason for approving or not approving.

 

3. Checklist For Endorsement Review of A Standard Prior to Final Endorsement (Step 10)

1. Evaluate the following parts of the standard:
Title: Does the title clearly and adequately describe the project?
Title page: Does the title page conform to the FGDC format?
Table of contents: Is there a table of contents and does it correctly identify the contents? Introductory material
Objectives: Is the purpose of the standard clearly stated?
Scope: Is the scope clearly defined? Is it clear what is within and not within the scope of the standard?
Applicability and intended uses of standard: Is it clear who should use the standard and for what applications?
Description of relationship to existing standards if applicable: If there are related standards, are they identified and the relationship explained?
Description of the development process: Is there a brief description that adequately describes the process by which the standard was developed? Is the basis for the standard identified, for example is this an existing standard, a modification of an existing standard or a new standard?
Identification of participants: Are the participating organizations identified? Individual names may or may not be included in the draft.
Maintenance of the Standard: Is the maintenance authority for the standard identified? If a maintenance strategy is described, is it understandable, reasonable, and does it follow FGDC process guidelines?
Body of the standard: Is the standard clearly organized and presented in an understandable manner? Does the Standard follow format guidelines in the FGDC Standards Reference Model?
References: Is there a reference section and does it conform to FGDC format requirements?
Appendices/Annexes: Is it clear whether these informative (not part of what is being standardized) or normative (part of what is being standardized)?

 

2. Are there any editorial corrections required?

3. Does the Standard reflect the requirements of the original proposal?

4. Is the standard independent of existing technology?

5. Can the standard be implemented with known technology?

6. Are there other similar standards available or are there other related standards development efforts going on? If so, are there overlap issues that need to be resolved, or is there a need to coordinate with other standards projects?

7. Was the public review based on a broad cross-section of users?

8. In revising the standard, was the development group responsive to the comments received during the public review period?

9. Are there any question that need to be answered or clarifications required before endorsement?

10. Do you approve forwarding this to the Coordination Group with a recommendation for endorsement as an FGDC standard? Explain reason for approval or disapproval.

 

Last Updated: May 16, 2014 03:57 PM
Spinner Image