Hello,

I like your points Mr. LeBreton, many libraries adopted early technology that came with issues of breakage. Also, public libraries are much more successful because of the short  lifespan of many of their books. The RFID journal is an excellent source for information and I believe that LITA has a focus group with a listserv. Ms. Salazar, I would not discount Augmented Reality and certainly wouldn’t discount RFID use as an augmented reality tool. This will be a huge mistake! an IoT is something librarians need to take more seriously.

At my Library we will eventually deploy RFID. We don’t have a large collection as we are a community college. However, we would like to connect our “odd” print books and connect them the best way we can. I portend that by the end of this decade, those books would be put in storage and only retrieved for niche users or those who will use them with augmentation technology. New books that we collect near the end of the decade would probably have AR and RFID (or technologies similar to RFID) embedded in them. If I was a Director of a collection of over a million books, I would probably not initiate an RFID program unless the technology is fully understood and augmentation is considered. Now if budget, time, and staffing aren’t huge issues, than I would deploy. However, be prepared to have to upgrade to contend with demands for AR. 

If AR is overlooked, you will be stuck with an outdated system. Like Mr. LeBreton said, RFID has come a long way. The next few years will be amazing!

This is of particular interest to me. I am a pioneer in iRoving at community college libraries, and my research, so far, has shown that AR and RFID (or similar technologies) are paramount to that particular service model.

Why any Librarian would scoff at Augmented Reality is mind blowing! But then again, many librarians still think that the print book (in its current form) is okay to use in academic research. I’m optimistic!!!

Thanks,

Cornel Darden Jr.
MSLIS
Library Department Chair

> On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Jonathan LeBreton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Christina,  
> 
> I'd be very interested if you could turn me onto the academic libraries that had RFID and have backed away or are backing away from it and returning to EM for security.     perhaps you could send me institutions names directly, off list, and turn me onto that listserv...   
> 
> I am aware that earlier generations of RFID tags were prone to breakage, and had a relatively short lifespan that rendered them suitable for the supposedly short span of a book's life at a public library, but not suited to the longer life on the average academic, much less the eternal life on a research library's shelves.     
> Yet current generations of RFID tags are physically much smaller and less prone to cracking  (I am told)  and prices have come way down.  We are now seeing some research libraries moving in the RFID direction such as NC State in the Hunt Library and  Delaware.  
> 
> - Jonathan  
> 
> 
> Jonathan LeBreton
> Senior Associate University Librarian
> Editor:  Library & Archival Security
> Temple University Libraries
> Paley M138,  1210 Polett Walk, Philadelphia PA 19122
> voice: 215.204.8231
> fax: 215.204.5201
> mobile: 215.284.5070
> email:  [log in to unmask]
> email:  [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Salazar, Christina
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] No really, this part is about RFID stuffs
> 
> I'm not an RFID expert by a long shot, but we do use it here at CSU Channel Islands and I had to learn a lot about it quickly because all our stuff broke and I had to fix it.
> 
> In that process, I had heard that while RFID's great for public libraries (where they're circulating enough that staff time is problematic as is material theft), academic libraries don't love it, particularly for security (which RFID is pretty bad at actually). I've heard of a few academic libraries that have abandoned RFID for security because it's just not worth maintaining (i.e., cost of stuff stolen versus costs of time, materials etc. to maintain the tags in the collection).
> 
> However, hopefully this audience knows that there's more to RFID than security and self-check (like automated materials handling, collection inventory and this other stuff, I wouldn't call it augmented reality - probably because I have the same reaction that Chris had to that phrase - but maybe something like "automated finding"). I mean with your RFID tag in there, your book or thing or whatever can send a signal to a receiver and now the receiver possibly could be your smart phone, right?
> 
> So while RFID has in fact made MY life hellish, I feel like there's more to it than what it's currently doing for us here in academic libraries in the US. But at the same time, I get the idea that people that I talk to in academic libraries in the US basically don't care about RFID and I kind of wonder why. They'd apparently rather talk about c4l illuminati.
> 
> On a related note, there IS an RFID in Libraries list (which is where I'm getting a lot of this information from) but I'm not sure that it's quite the venue to start talking about standards and innovation, while I thought this list was.
> 
> It makes me happy that one other person is interested in RFID in libraries... or were you just toying with my emotions?
> 
> Christina Salazar
> 
> -----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.