Good humor!

Mark was changed to marking because the certification bodies of Europe 
pointed out that 'Mark' was a term commonly used when referring to 
third-parties via their certification marks. The term 'third parties,' in 
this case, is defined by an ISO document addressing conformity assessment 
definitions---I think IEC 50. This same document defines the term 
'certification'  and includes a note inidcating self-certification to be an 
oxymoron. 

Since most of the world's certification bodies operate based on many of the 
guidelines and principles promulgated by the ISO, most would agree that 
using the term 'Mark' for something that is self-declaration based would 
create confusion at minimum. 
Indeed, we see this confusion daily as many people in our industry confuse 
voluntary and legal certification issues in the midst of their pursuit of 
market access. 

Certification is a product/service like many others. It has been possible 
to self-declare electrical products into Europe since 1975 under the Low 
Voltage Directive. Anyone who buys certification expects to gain some value 
from it or they would not do it. Many US manufacturers are confused by this 
since a NRLT Mark is required on equpiment in the US workplace. I suspect 
that if the US adopted a self-declaration based stance (not likely in my 
lifetime), many manufacturers would maintain existing certification where 
it made sense.  Since Europeans who certify have no market access mandate 
to do so, there must be other motivations, hence the value (sense) in 
having it.  

Thus as Art pointed out, the term 'CE marking,'--precisely as you see it in 
the apostrophes--is the correct EU term used to refer to the custom's 
equivalent of a bar code.

But Vic's idea seems more appealing somehow. 

Gene Panger
TUV Product Service

-------------
Original Text
From: [email protected], on 4-07-97 10:30 AM:
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>





Jim Collum@3COM
04/07/97 09:30 AM

>My informants have it that the terminology was changed because some
fundamentalist groups
>felt the "Mark" was associated with the"Mark of the Devil" and therefore
inapprpriate.
>Wonder if there's something of a lesson in that ?

Change your informants?


Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules.
Jim


Reply via email to