Talk:EIA-649 National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management

Developed in 1994, or 1998, or?
The first line of the article states that "ANSI/EIA-649 was developed in 1994". My copy of "ANSI/EIA-649-1998" reads that it was approved on July 10, 1998, and also has an "August 1998" on page-1 (perhaps published a month after approval?). It also says that a committee or working group was formed in 1994, but for something else; that group was from "EIA". It also says that EIA published an Interim Standard "EIA/IS-649" in August 1995; then another group was formed by "ANSI" in 1996. The term "developed" implies some sense of finality, so I believe that the actual approval date may best reflect that end, or otherwise better state that the document reflects a collaboration of efforts originated by EIA in 1994, and then by ANSI in 1996.

ANSI/EIA-649-B-2011 also has the double-dating format, (June 17th and April 2011), perhaps one is the EIA date and the other the ANSI date.

If the current document is published as "ANSI/EIA-649 Configuration Management Standard" since 2011, (with ANSI participation since 1996) perhaps the title of the article should reflect same.

Maybe a re-write would describe the current document first, and then relegate the miscellaneous background information to a "history" section.

Taking Ownership
The overview section discusses ownership of the subject standard, and references the standard itself. I cannot find the word "own" used in such context in the document (only about liability to the patent owner). I am fairly sure that nobody else "owns" my two (2) copies, (reproduced with permission). Perhaps the phrase "owned by" should be changed to "copyrighted by". That is what my copies read, "This document is copyrighted by TechAmerica and..." and the other "Copyright © 2013 SAE International". Also, the SAE "FAQs" webpage on intellectual property (IP) does not use the word "own" but uses the word "copyright" 27 times.

Perhaps the details about "adoption" and "copyrights" of industry standards should be a totally separate article.