 |
 |
OH NO! (shudder) I’m pretty sure no one is suggesting a "formalized c4l" AGAIN - we've been there done that, relatively recently too. I think what we're talking about is a way to represent c4l interests in standards making bodies. And just for my own edification, if you're saying c4l IS represented in standards making bodies, please tell me who do I talk to? For instance on the RFID thing, who can I talk to in order to find out HOW and IF this conversation is happening with American standards making bodies? Or do you mean INDIVIDUALS who participate in c4l are represented in standards making bodies? Christina -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francis Kayiwa Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:07 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Forwarding blog post: Apple, Android and NFC – how should libraries prepare? (RFID stuffs) On 10/07/2014 02:03 PM, Cary Gordon wrote: NISO (and LITA, ASIS&T, > etc.) are quite well represented on this list, and I don't believe > that a formalized c4l would give us any more say in standards that we have already. +1 ./fxk -- You single-handedly fought your way into this hopeless mess.