 |
 |
I like c4l because there are limited standards... Just sayin' Riley Childs Senior Charlotte United Christian Academy Library Services Administrator IT Services (704) 497-2086 rileychilds.net @rowdychildren ________________________________ From: Chris Fitzpatrick<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: ý10/ý8/ý2014 7:53 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Forwarding blog post: Apple, Android and NFC – how should libraries prepare? (RFID stuffs) So this thread started from talking about RFID ( "i'm interested!" ) to talking about augmented reality ( "uh, ok, now less interested...") to talking about standards ( "oh no, not again.." ) to talking about c4l ( "yep." ) So, are people using RFID? A lot? Is it working, or did it make life hellish? b,chris. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I guess there’s “what do you mean by ‘C4L'” and “what do you mean by > ‘standards’” that need to be clarified here. > > Cary is right, this list/community/whatever is definitely well represented > by people who sit on formal standards committees or are involved in the > organizations that create them, etc. > > But I think more important is the “what do you mean by ‘standards’” > question: C4L has definitely spawned several specifications (COinS, UnAPI, > etc.) and (in my mind) has been under-utilized in this arena for a few > years. You’ve got a gathering of smart, like-minded people: if you want to > create a spec, solicit your idea, start a mailing list, follow the ROGUE > ’05 rules [1], and let a thousand specifications bloom. > > We’re generally in need of a spec, not a standard, I’ve found (although > they’re definitely not mutually exclusive!). > > -Ross. > 1. http://wiki.code4lib.org/Rogue > > On Oct 7, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Salazar, Christina < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > 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. >