 |
 |
Oh I definitely agree. Some of my best friends are narcissists, so I get it. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Riley Childs <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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: 10/8/2014 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. > > >