See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275173767

ISO Standards - Are they terminologically coherent?

Conference Paper · June 2011

CITATIONS READS
0 129

2 authors, including:

Kara Warburton
Termologic
25 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Routledge Series in Translation Technology View project

Multilingual Journal View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kara Warburton on 20 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISO Standards – Are they terminologically coherent?
Kara Warburton, City University of Hong Kong
Lindsay Martin, ISO TC37 Terminology Coordination Group

Paper presented at the First International Conference on Terminology, Languages, and Content Resources
(LaRC), Seoul, South Korea, June 10, 2011

Introduction

According to the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 - Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards,
“The objective of documents published by ISO and IEC is to define clear and unambiguous provisions in order
to facilitate international trade and communication.” The directives continue to say that, to achieve this
objective, “uniformity of terminology shall be maintained”. To assist standards developers in achieving this
objective, the directives lay out detailed requirements for using and documenting terminology in standards.
These requirements are based on a standard produced by ISO TC37, ISO 10241-1:2011, Terminological entries
in standards — Part 1: General requirements and examples of presentation.

However sound these requirements may be, they will not achieve the stated objectives if they are not followed
rigorously. In the interests of international trade and communication, an audit should be performed to determine
the degree to which the requirements are being met. This paper describes a preliminary audit performed on
standards developed by three ISO technical committees, to determine the degree to which their terminology is
uniform and coherent, in particular considering the requirements laid out in the above two documents.

How ISO standards document their terminology

ISO has over 260 technical committees, which have produced 18,500 standards. According to the above-cited
ISO Directives, each ISO standard must have its terminology documented, that is, the terms identified and
defined clearly. The most common approach is to include the terms and definitions that are used in a standard in
the standard itself, usually in Section 3 - Terms and definitions. Another approach is to produce a separate
standard dedicated exclusively to the terminology of the domain covered by the technical committee. The current
study examined terms and definitions documented within the glossary of an existing standard so that a
correlation could be established between the documented terminology and the language used in the body of the
standard itself.

For readability purposes, we often refer to Section 3 - Terms and definitions as the “glossary”.

Basic principles of ISO 10241-1

ISO 10241-1 begins by stating, “The standardization of terms and definitions is fundamental to all
standardization activities.” It is thus understandable that ISO 10241-1 is a normative standard in Part 2 of the
ISO/IEC Directives, meaning that its provisions must be adhered to in the drafting of ISO standards. It is further
understandable that ISO TC37 itself has been recognized as a “horizontal” technical committee, meaning that its
standards are essential for the drafting of standards in all the domains covered by ISO.

In this section, we summarize the main provisions in ISO 10241-1 that support the goals of clear and
unambiguous communication in ISO standards, with a focus on those provisions that are considered in the
current study. These provisions are based on the fundamental principles and methods of terminology
management given in ISO 704, Terminology work – Principles and Methods.

1
A term, as defined in ISO 10241-1, is a verbal designation of a general concept in a specific domain or subject.
The standard stipulates that “the terminological entries shall cover all concepts relevant to the domain, subject
and scope, minimizing overlap with other standards.” This means that all terms used in the body of the standard
should be defined in the glossary.

Another key principle is that “one designation (i.e. term, symbol or appellation) corresponds to one concept and
only one concept corresponds to one designation in a given domain or subject in a given language.” This
principle leads to the following requirements:

1. Avoid using a single term for multiple concepts and multiple terms for a single concept, i.e., avoid
homographs and synonyms.
2. Avoid contradictions occurring in terminological entries in closely related standards.

“Within any standard, the terms specified shall be used consistently.” This means, that the terms used in the body
of the standard should match those documented in the glossary. Later, it is stated, “Whenever a concept is
referred to elsewhere in the text of a standard, the preferred term should be used to designate this concept.” This
again, means, that the preferred term documented in the glossary should be used consistently in the body of the
document.

Regarding the drafting of definitions, they “shall be based on the general rules and principles laid down in ISO
704. (...) A definition shall consist of a single phrase specifying the concept and if possible reflecting the position
of the concept in the concept system. This requirement can best be met by using intensional definitions.”

Regarding the arrangement of the terms, systematic order is preferred over alphabetical order, yet, only one of
the standards in this study used systematic order, another used alphabetic, and the remaining arranged the terms
in completely random order.

One of the main requirements in this standard is that the technical committee establish a concept system prior to
documenting the terms for the standard. It is fairly clear, from the results of the current study, that none of the
technical committees concerned actually fulfilled this requirement, otherwise, many of the problems we found
would not have occurred. It would be interesting to establish how many of the over 250 ISO Technical
Committees actually follow this practice.

Methodology

The following standards documents were examined by a terminologist.

ISO TC8 – Ships and marine technology

• ISO 16273 - Night vision equipment for high-speed craft - Operational and performance requirements,
methods of testing and required test results
ISO TC29 – Small tools
• ISO/TS 13399-3 – Cutting tool data representation and exchange – Part 3: Reference dictionary for tool
items
• ISO/TS 13399-100 – Cutting tool data representation and exchange – Part 100: Definitions, principles
and methods for reference dictionaries
• ISO 22917 – Superabrasives – Limit deviations and run-out tolerances for grinding wheels with diamond
or cubit boron nitride
ISO TC83 – Sports and recreational equipment
• ISO 10256 - Head and face protection for use in ice hockey
• ISO 13992 - Alpine touring ski-bindings--Requirements and test methods

2
 • ISO 11088 - Assembly, adjustment and inspection of an alpine ski/binding/boot (S-B-B) system
The use of a term extraction tool to identify the terms used in the body of the standards was considered.
Although this approach would have saved a considerable amount of time, the authors were concerned about the
margin of error. It was therefore decided to extract the terms manually.

The following aspects were carefully studied:

1. Do the terms defined in the glossary actually occur in the standard?

2. Do terms occur in the standard that are not defined in the glossary, and which should be according to the
Directives?
3. Are the definitions in the glossary sound? Do they meet the principles of ISO 704?
4. Do definitions occur in the body, rather than in the glossary?
5. Are non-preferred terms used in the standard, rather than their preferred counterparts?

ISO 16273 - Night vision equipment for high-speed craft - Operational and performance requirements,
methods of testing and required test results

This International Standard applies to operational and performance requirements and methods of testing for
night vision equipment fitted to high-speed craft. It is 26 pages long.

The glossary defines only four terms:

• night vision equipment
• high-speed craft
• test target for sea trials
• lit vessel

Rarely occurring terms are defined, while frequently-occurring variants are not. Of the four terms defined in the
glossary, only one (night vision equipment) is used frequently in the document. The three others are only used
twice in the entire document, in one case, only in the title and introduction. The second occurrence of one term
even contains a typo: test target for sea trails. Two terms have an associated abbreviated form which is used
extensively in the document but is not described in the glossary: test target and HSC.

Many terms are used in the body of the document whose meaning must be clear in order to apply the
measurements and tests described in this standard. The following lists some of the frequent and important terms
that are not defined in the glossary. Most of these terms are also not defined in the body of the document.

• mean starlight conditions

• pan / panning
• pan range
• pan speed
• graphical ahead mark
• blooming
• blind angle
• head wind
• true wind
• pan-tilt device
• magnetic compass safe distance
• sea trial
• EUT / equipment under test (EUT is used extensively)

3
 • Minimum Resolvable Temperature Difference (MRTD)
• Minimum Detectable Temperature Difference (MDTD, sometimes MDD)
• active image-intensifier system
• extinction coefficient / atmospheric extinction coefficient
• photometric distance law
• thermal imager system
• craft lubber line
• vessel speed over ground

The impact of not having definitions for these terms can be observed in the following sentence:

“Whilst in operational mode, double functions of controls shall be avoided on such controls as for pan,
vertical trim, field of view and other essential functions.”

Not only is the meaning of pan, vertical trim, and field of view, unclear to the reader, but so is the meaning of
double function. Without an understanding of these concepts, users of the standard cannot be certain that they are
meeting the requirement as intended.

ISO 22917 - Superabrasives – Limit deviations and run-out tolerances for grinding wheels with
diamond or cubit boron nitride

This standard provides the limit deviations and run-out tolerances of grinding tools. It is 24 pages long.

The following 12 terms are defined in the glossary:

• size
• basic size / nominal size
• actual size
• limits of size
• maximum limit of size
• minimum limit of size
• deviation
• limit deviations
• upper deviation
• lower deviation
• size tolerance

These terms generally refer to concepts of size and measurement. Unfortunately, eight of them are never used in
the document.

On the other hand, the following terms are considered key to applying this standard, yet they are not defined,
even in the body of the standard:

• superabrasive
• run-out tolerance
• face grinding

4
The term run-out tolerance occurs frequently both alone and in larger compounds, such as circular run-out
tolerance.

The definition of limits of size includes the term itself, limits of size, thus it violates the principles in the
normative standard, ISO 704.

3.1.3
limits of size
two extreme permissible sizes of a feature, between which the actual size should lie, the limits of size
being included

A more serious problem exists for the definition of size tolerance:

3.3
size tolerance
difference between the maximum limit of size and the minimum limit of size, i.e. the difference between
the upper deviation and the lower deviation

NOTE The tolerance is an absolute value without sign.

The second part of this definition can only be interpreted to mean that upper deviation is synonymous with
maximum limit of size, and that lower deviation is synonymous with minimum limit of size. Yet, these four terms
are documented in separate entries with different definitions, for example:

3.1.3.1
maximum limit of size
greatest permissible size of a feature

3.2.1.1
upper deviation
algebraic difference between the maximum limit of size and the corresponding basic size

With four different concepts described, it is impossible to determine the meaning of size tolerance, since there
are two possible interpretations. Furthermore, the note is not understandable as the meaning of sign is not
provided.

ISO/TS 13399-3: Cutting tool data representation and exchange – Part 3: Reference dictionary
for tool items

The 13399 series provides the information structure needed to describe various data about cutting tools, to
enable the electronic representation of cutting tool data. It is intended to facilitate the use, manipulation and
exchange of cutting tool data within and between manufacturing, distribution and usage. This part of the series
defines the terms, properties and definitions for cutting tools, and is 170 pages long. Section 3 of this standard is
large, comprising 35 defined concepts.

The first observable problem is that many of the defined terms do not occur at all in the standard, or occur only
once. Twelve terms never occur, and four occur only once. Thus, nearly half of the terms in the glossary should
probably not be there.

5
On the other hand, key terms are found in the body but are missing from the glossary:

• “the tool in hand” convention

• master insert
• broach
• cartridge
• drill
• stepped hole
• boss
• swarf
• traverse keyway
• ream

Some of the missing terms refer to types of tools. Definitions for these terms are often found in the body, for
example:

“broach is a generic family of items designed for use mainly in broaching operations”
“ream is a generic family of items designed for use mainly in reaming operations”

However, the above examples exemplify a circular definition, since broaching and reaming are not defined.

The term data type is defined as “domain of values” in the glossary. However, another standard in this series,
ISO/TS 13399-100, uses the term value domain for this concept, i.e. a range of permissible values. Value domain
is also used by other ISO Technical Committees, including TC37.

The following definitions of closely-related terms are not systematic when compared with each other. It is not
possible to clearly differentiate these three concepts:

3.14
family of items
simple or generic family of items

3.15
generic family of items
grouping of simple or generic families of items for the purpose of classification or for associating
common information

3.24
simple family of items
set of items in which each item may be described by the same group of properties

The first entry suggests that family of items can be an abbreviated form for either of the other two terms.
However, this is not clear, and if this is the case, the first entry should not appear and the other two should
include family of items as a deprecated synonym. The other two terms, being parallel in structure, should be
defined in a parallel way so that their differences are clear.

6
The following shows two synonyms that are defined in separate entries:

3.21
mirror plane
xz plane in the coordinate axis system

3.32
xz plane
plane in the coordinate axis system that contains the X and Z axes with the normal of the plane in the
positive Y direction.

Finally, several of the defined terms have abbreviated forms, which are extensively used in the body but not
documented in the glossary:

• data element type / DET

• basic semantic unit / BSU

ISO/TS 13399-100 – Cutting tool data representation and exchange – Part 100: Definitions,
principles and methods for reference dictionaries

This part of the 13399 standards series defines the principles and methods for the construction of reference
dictionaries for data related to cutting tools. It is 60 pages long.

Section 3 of this standard contains no terms at all. For terms and definitions, readers are referred to IEC 61360-
1: Standard data element types with associated classification scheme for electric items, Part 1 – Definitions –
Principles and methods. To effectively use ISO/TS 13399-100, one must, therefore, purchase IEC 61360-1 at
considerable expense. Terms like the following occur very frequently in the standard and are neither defined nor
explained:

• data element type

• non-classifying data element type
• condition data element type
• data element class
• object class
• feature class
• attribute
• identifying attribute
• semantic attribute
• value attribute
• relationship attribute
• item class
• feature class
• “tool in the hand” convention (Note that this term is also used in ISO 13399-3, where it is also
undefined)
• “tool in use” convention

In the body of the standard, attributes are sometimes defined in conflicting, ambiguous, or confusing ways, for
instance:

7
 preferred name
single- or multi-word label to identify a data element type

short name
label used to identify a data element type

According to the definitions, preferred name is a narrower concept to short name, yet this does not seem logical.
Interestingly, the term short name is defined for classes differently and more clearly:

short name
single word identifier derived from the characters in the preferred name

preferred symbol
label used as an identifier for a concept

Without definitions of concept and data element type, it is impossible to distinguish between preferred symbol
and short name.

synonymous name
single- or multi-word label that identifies the same concept as the preferred name but is a widely used
and acceptable alternative.

Here, the use of concept in the definition is confusing, since preferred name identifies a data element type, not a
concept.

ISO 10256 - Head and face protection for use in ice hockey

This part of the 10256 standards series outlines the requirements, conditions, and testing methods for head and
face protection for ice hockey. It is 48 pages long.

The standard has a large Section 3 with 69 terms defined. However, 16 of them do not occur at all in the
standard, and eight more are used only once. Thus, the purpose of nearly 35 percent of the terms in the glossary
section is highly questionable.

Two of the terms were defined as “self explanatory”. Clearly these terms need not be documented in the
glossary, if their meaning is self-explanatory.

In one case, a deprecated term is used throughout the document, while its preferred counterpart does not occur
once. In three other cases, both the deprecated term and the preferred term are used, with the deprecated term
occurring more frequently than the preferred term. In another case, an abbreviation is used but is not
documented.

The term interpupillary distance is defined, but is never used. Furthermore, the inaccurate acronym PD is listed
with this term, but also never used. However, we find a variant, pupillary distance, in use instead.

There are several cases of inconsistencies between the terms in the glossary and in the body of the document, in
hyphenation, word formation, and so forth. For example, the term photosensor is written as one word in the
glossary, and as two words in the body of the document.

8
Both securely attached label and/or tag and securely attached label and tag are separately defined in the
glossary. Not only is it an obvious problem to have such similar terms separately defined, but futhermore, neither
of these terms actually occurs in the standard. The definitions are also almost identical:

3.2.12
securely attached label and tag
label or tag affixed at the time of manufacture, and which is normally removed at the time of helmet use

3.3.31
securely attached label and/or tag
label or tag affixed at the time of manufacture, and which is normally removed at the time of face-
protector or visor use

The only difference between them--the use of face protector and visor instead of helmet -- brings up another
terminology issue. The term face protector is used throughout the document, but is not included in the glossary.
Furthermore, face protector is used as a synonym for helmet which goes against ISO terminology directives.

There are cases of nested definitions. The definition of field of vision includes a definition for retinal point.

3.3.7
field of vision
projection outward of all retinal points (the nervous layer of the eye) at which visual sensations can be
initiated

There are also circular definitions; the definition of orbit contains the term orbit. This definition is also
confusing, appearing to document two concepts:

3.3.19
orbit
either a quadrilateral, pyramidal cavity situated at the upper and anterior part of the face, or the bony
cavity containing the eyeball and other associated tissues within the orbit

In the following entry, the status of the term infraorbital margin is unclear.

3.3.20
orbitale
lowermost point on the inferior margin of the orbit (infraorbital margin)

Is it a synonym for orbit? Or is it a synonym for orbitale? Or is it a synonym for inferior margin of the orbit?
Whatever the case, it would require a different entry layout. Including terms in parentheses like this in
definitions is prohibited, as the meaning of such treatment is unclear.

The following definition is not phrased as a definition, according to ISO 704.

3.3.26
prism imbalance
light passing through a lens and entering one eye is deviated by an amount differing in direction from the
same light passing through the lens and entering the other eye

Over 20 terms are used in the body of the document but are missing from the glossary. The term headform
occurs 119 times, including in the definition of other terms. Thus, understanding the precise meaning of this term

9
is necessary for understanding many other concepts in this standard. The term eye protector is used throughout
the document, in some cases as a synonym for visor. Different types of planes are defined in the glossary,
including horizontal plane, but image plane, basic plane, construction plane, and even vertical plane are not
defined. The term construction plane is used as the genus in the definition of reference plane. These
undocumented plane terms occur over 20 times in the standard. If a decision is made to define the different types
of planes in the glossary, they should all be included.

ISO 11088 Assembly, adjustment and inspection of an alpine ski/binding/boot (S-B-B) system

This part of the 11088 standards series outlines the assembly, adjustment, and inspection of the components of
the ski/binding/boot system. The document is designed for use primarily by retailers and is 16 pages long.

The standard contains 10 entries in the glossary. All 10 terms appear in the document, however, four of them
occur only once.

The main terminology issue in this doument is the use of non-preferred synonyms. Four of the 10 terms in the
glossary have non-preferred synonyms and three of these are used as often, or more often, than their preferred
counterparts.

In keeping with the ISO terminology standards, the glossary term trouble-shooting procedures should be written
in the singular. Furthermore, the term trouble-shooting instructions, a likely synonym, is used in the document.
This concept is not specific to the domain of alpine skiing and probably does not need to be defined.

There is one example of a term in the glossary whose definition contains the term:

3.2
indicator value
Z-mark
release indicator value marked on the binding in accordance with ISO 9462

Circular definitions are unclear and violate the terminology principles in the standard, ISO 704.

Five terms occur at least twice in the document but are not defined in the glossary. One of them, tibial width
method is inconsistent in the document, where it is also found written as tibia-width method.

The term release moment is used extensively throughout the document, including as a genus term in the
definitions of other terms, but is not itself defined.

ISO 13992 Alpine touring ski-bindings--Requirements and test methods

This part of the 13992 standards series outlines the characteristics and testing procedures for touring ski-bindings
for juniors and adults. It is 37 pages long.

There are 17 concepts defined in the glossary. Of these 17 concepts, three are not used in the document, and
three other terms occur only once.

There are several glossary terms that appear in their plural form in the glossary. Terms should be entered in their
canonical form in a glossary.

10
There are several instances of definitions that contain the term being defined:

3.6
additional loads
loads applied additionally to the release torque Mz

3.7
deflection of the ski
deflection of the ski perpendicular to its gliding surface

The above definitions are not helpful. It is likely that these terms do not need to be defined, but can be explained
in the body of the standard.

Fifteen terms occur at least twice in the document, but are not defined in the glossary. The following are a few
examples:
• advancing position
• load
• torsion
• leash
• setting scale
• axial force

The term limit, appears as the preferred term in four different entries in the glossary, each one defined differently.
Each of these terms has a different abbreviation: L1, L2, L3, L4. Using the same term to denote different
concepts causes error and confusion. In this case, the abbreviated forms should have been chosen as the
preferred term, to avoid ambiguity.

Synopsis of the observations

Based on the seven documents reviewed for this project, we can draw some conclusions about how terminology
is used and is documented in ISO standards across three industry sectors. Let us reconsider the aspects that are
the focus of this study.

1. Do the terms defined in the glossary actually occur in the standard?

We discovered that of the 147 glossary terms reviewed across the seven documents, 39 are not used at all in the
associated document. Therefore, an average of 26% of glossary terms are extraneous. Twenty additional terms
are used only once in a document, representing 13% of the total terms. Overall, the need for 40% of the glossary
terms in the seven documents is highly questionable. This figure represents a significant waste of resources, both
of the time and skills of the experts at the technical committee, and of the publishing resources at the ISO
Central Secretariat. Including unnecessary content in standards violates the ISO Directives and inflates the cost
of standards by increasing the page count. It is a reflection of poor quality. Finally, it diverts the readers attention
away from the important concepts that should be defined but are missing.

2. Do terms occur in the standard that are not defined in the glossary, and which should be according to
the Directives?

Over 90 terms are used twice or more in these standards, but never defined. Standards cannot be effectively
implemented if the concepts they use are not perfectly clear. Failure to define the key terms in a standard can

11
lead to implementation errors that can have potentially serious consequences ranging from safety issues to
unintended impediments to international trade.

3. Are the definitions in the glossary sound? Do they meet the principles of ISO 704?

We found instances of the following problems:

• Genus terms not themselves defined
• Circular definitions (the definition includes the term being defined)
• Nested definitions (definitions that contain definitions of other terms)
• Definitions that simply repeat the term, but with a different syntax
• Unnecessary definitions, such as “self explanatory”
• Definitions that contain extraneous (non-essential) information
• Unparallel definitions of parallel terms
• Unsystematic definitions of closely-related terms
• Definitions that use terms in a manner that conflicts with the definitions of those terms
• Definitions that suggest synonyms for other terms

We found that most of the definitions appear, at least on the surface, to be well written and carefully thought-out.
This superficial impression may be the reason why the problems we found have gone unnoticed. Nevertheless,
the number of problems is not acceptable. These problems will be compounded when the international standards
are converted to national standards, especially if translated to other languages. It is clear that if technical
committees adopted the methodology prescribed in ISO 10241-1 and ISO 704 to establish a concept system
before defining the terms, most of these problems could be avoided.

4. Do definitions occur in the body, rather than in the glossary?

We found many cases of this phenomenon. While it is permitted to define terms in the body of a standard, such
definitions should normally also appear in Section 3. This is necessary for ease of consultation of the concepts
by users of the standard, and for repurposing of ISO terminology such as in the ISO Concept Database.

5. Are non-preferred terms used in the standard, rather than their preferred counterparts?

Non-preferred terms were used frequently throughout the standards. Many of the used non-preferred terms, such
as abbreviations, were also found to be missing from the glossary. We also even found several cases of synonyms
documented in separate glossary entries, with different definitions. The use of inconsistent terms in a standard
reduces clarity and introduces ambiguity.

Conclusion

All the ISO standards evaluated in this preliminary audit fail to implement the ISO Directives with respect to
terminology. The problems may be severe enough to impede the application of the standard and thereby reduce
the ability of the standardization process to achieve the goal of facilitating international trade and
communication. This is a source of concern which should be addressed in a concerted manner. Further audits are
recommended to validate these findings. We suggest that the ISO Central Secretariat take the initiative to
establish and coordinate interventions to address the problems, such as by developing and delivering education
modules, and establishing and implementing a regular auditing process to identify and address these problems
before standards are published.

12
 Acknowledgements

Research described in this article was supported in part by grants received from City University of Hong Kong
(Project Nos 9610188, 7008062 and 7008002).

The authors would like to express their appreciation to Leila Saber and Jenny Pellaux of ISO Central Secretariat
for providing the ISO documents for this project.

Bibliography

All the references are published by the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 - Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards. Sixth edition, 2011.

ISO 10241-1 - Terminological entries in standards — Part 1: General requirements and examples of
presentation. 2011.

ISO 704 – Terminology work – Principles and Methods. 2009.

ISO 16273 - Night vision equipment for high-speed craft - Operational and performance requirements, methods
of testing and required test results. 2003.

ISO/TS 13399-3 – Cutting tool data representation and exchange – Part 3: Reference dictionary for tool items.
2007.

ISO/TS 13399-100 – Cutting tool data representation and exchange – Part 100: Definitions, principles and
methods for reference dictionaries. 2008.

ISO 22917 – Superabrasives – Limit deviations and run-out tolerances for grinding wheels with diamond or
cubit boron nitride. 2004.

ISO 10256 - Head and face protection for use in ice hockey. 2003.

ISO 13992 - Alpine touring ski-bindings--Requirements and test methods. 2006.

ISO 11088 - Assembly, adjustment and inspection of an alpine ski/binding/boot (S-B-B) system. 2007.

13

View publication stats