We use RFID, a lot.  It's been insanely fabulous for reducing repetitive stress among our staff.  We circulate about 3 million items a year, which translates into about 6 million times somebody needs to check something in or out.  We have patron self-checkout at some branches but by no means all.  As someone observed earlier, the situation in the circulating collections in a public library is rather different vs. a research collection in an academic library.  For that matter, in our non-circulating collections I don't believe we've RFID tagged anything.

Genny Engel
Sonoma County Library
[log in to unmask]
707 545-0831 x1581
www.sonomalibrary.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Fitzpatrick
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 4:53 AM
To: [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.
>