Secondary sources to cite
The Context
ISO/IEC and IEEE (2017, p. 434)'s definition of "stability" is taken from ISO/IEC (2009):
There is an online preview of this standard (as there often is for ISO/IEC-only standards), but this does not contain any information on "stability". Searching on SEVOCAB (which I keep forgetting exists 😅) gives the same definition, citing ISO/IEC (2009), but I'm not sure if this definition is from them or is taken (along with the citation) from ISO/IEC and IEEE (2017, p. 434) (the link is also broken 🙃):
My Question
Would it be alright to cite this original source based on these results even if I haven't read it in full to verify it? I can only find standards-organization-based logins (i.e., no McMaster login) and I'm not spending $230 CAD to verify a single definition, so would adding a footnote explaining this be a good compromise between citing the original source while not being able to verify it, or could I just omit any mention of the original source?
A similar issue came up with Hetzel (1988) which is a physical book I couldn't find on ProQuest.
Update
"The IEEE style does not allow for the use of secondary citations" and "if the original source cannot be located, it should not be cited", which I verified with multiple sources.
Secondary sources to cite
The Context
ISO/IEC and IEEE (2017, p. 434)'s definition of "stability" is taken from ISO/IEC (2009):
There is an online preview of this standard (as there often is for ISO/IEC-only standards), but this does not contain any information on "stability". Searching on SEVOCAB (which I keep forgetting exists 😅) gives the same definition, citing ISO/IEC (2009), but I'm not sure if this definition is from them or is taken (along with the citation) from ISO/IEC and IEEE (2017, p. 434) (the link is also broken 🙃):
My Question
Would it be alright to cite this original source based on these results even if I haven't read it in full to verify it? I can only find standards-organization-based logins (i.e., no McMaster login) and I'm not spending $230 CAD to verify a single definition, so would adding a footnote explaining this be a good compromise between citing the original source while not being able to verify it, or could I just omit any mention of the original source?
A similar issue came up with Hetzel (1988) which is a physical book I couldn't find on ProQuest.
Update
"The IEEE style does not allow for the use of secondary citations" and "if the original source cannot be located, it should not be cited", which I verified with multiple sources.