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.
> >
>