Apologies...apparently I have no email address that can compose mail to
all these various lists at once. Here is my response to Ross.

There may be others better situated to answer the question of what
success means, but I will take a stab at it. Obviously, what the members
of the task force would *like* to see are some implementations. However,
the actual charge of the DLF Task Force itself concerns creating a
written proposal for integration. The current group will be dissolving
with the publication of a final version within the next month. Whether
or not DLF will be playing an active role in encouraging/overseeing
actual implementation is wide open for debate and by no means
guaranteed. DLF is not a standards-making body and the scope of this
type of work goes beyond the boundaries of DLF membership. We are hoping
that those who have history with the origins of this task force (whose
ranks do not include me) will be discussing this very question at the
next DLF Forum the end of April. I could not predict what the outcome of
that discussion would be.

 From the informal charge of the DLF Task Force: "DLF is planning to
establish a Task Group to analyze the issues involved in integrating ILS
and discovery systems, and to create a technical proposal for how such
integration should be accomplished."

So, in many senses, adoption and implementation is left wide-open to the


Ross Singer wrote:
> Emily,
> Actually, thanks for cross-pollinating this to all three lists, since
> I think it directly affects all three groups.
> I think one of the questions that would help guide this discussion is
> knowing a little more about the future of the DLF API and the role
> that the task force will have in it.  You mention that the group
> doesn't feel comfortable with trying to implement, but obviously they
> have a stake in making sure it doesn't just fall by the wayside,
> forgotten.  What, exactly, does "success" mean to the task force and
> what are the plans of achieving that?  Would the ideal be to release a
> more formal recommendation and hope something adopts that and
> continues development?  Or would it continue to evolve independently
> of other initiatives and what kind of group *should* be shepherding
> that?
> As far as where the development lives, I can make arguments for both
> and; both have advantages and
> disadvantages.
> I couldn't imagine people objecting to this being hosted on
>, it's certainly not out of scope to what people are
> working on there.  That being said, will probably
> always be a hodge-podge of content from a variety of different
> initiatives; most of which would have nothing to do with the DLF API.
> That might be a little disconcerting to uninitiated.  It's a good
> project-neutral location, however.
> On the flip side, Jangle is using the DLF API as the use case to guide
> the initial development.  At first blush it would seem as though it
> makes sense combine the two (there will certainly be need for
> communication and coordination); however, Jangle and the DLF API are
> not a 1:1 match.  Jangle (at least in the current vision) wouldn't
> directly supply the DLF API and it would need to be made clear that
> the DLF API could be implemented *without implementing Jangle* (which,
> again, might be confusing to the uninitiated).  Since both of these
> projects are really working for the same eventual outcome ("help me
> free my data"), there is something to be said for them being under the
> same umbrella.
> Regarding your other question, the hosting of this code, I think,
> again, either place could work.  What we're really talking about a
> registry (code for SD Unicorn, EL Aleph, Koha, etc.) with either file
> attachments or contact information on how to download it (if, for
> instance, it's protected by an NDA).
> -Ross.
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Emily Lynema <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  Many apologies for the cross-posting, but I wanted to make sure all the
>>  involved parties were fully represented.
>>  I have 2 questions that relate to the work of the ILS Discovery
>>  Interface Task Force [1], the work of the jangle community [2], and the
>>  code4lib community in general.
>>  1. At the Discovery Interface Task Force breakout session at code4lib,
>>  there were many folks interested in moving beyond the abstract DLF
>>  recommendation document [3] to more detailed function specifications
>>  that could actually be implemented with specific technologies and
>>  metadata formats. While we'd love to be able to fully specify a single
>>  uniform API specification, those of us on the DLF group feel we lack the
>>  time, resources, nor expertise to do this without community input.
>>  The idea of providing a wiki where anyone could contribute ideas about
>>  implementing the recommended functionality (which would hopefully evolve
>>  into best practices over time) was well received at code4lib. However,
>>  DLF doesn't have an openly available wiki and may not be shepherding
>>  this work in the future. *does* have an openly available wiki.
>>  At the same time, I see a lot of interest going into an API
>>  specification for jangle. I think these projects could work together on
>>  defining metadata formats and schemas that support the DLF
>>  functionality. But I don't know if the jangle specification will provide
>>  a direct mapping to the functions in the DLF recommendation. Jangle
>>  already has an open wiki hosted by Google Code (and a Drupal installation).
>>  In the spirit of democratic openness, I wanted to poll the community.
>>  Does it make sense to start a space on the wiki regarding
>>  implementation of the DLF recommendation? Is that an acceptable use of
>>  the wiki? Or does it make more sense to point to the jangle wiki as a
>>  place for discussion?
>>  2. During the code4lib breakout session, we also discussed creating a
>>  wiki where library developers could share their past work to access data
>>  stored in the ILS (ex: I've written a function that retrieves live
>>  holdings in SirsiDynix, I've written a function that places a hold in
>>  Innovative, etc.). We would hope to move toward a point where the code
>>  could actually be posted and shared in an open source fashion (no one
>>  really knows about NDAs yet). Is this an acceptable use of the code4lib
>>  wiki? Google Code makes sense for posting code, but seems like overkill
>>  if all you need is a wiki.
>>  Please let me know if you have any input or suggestions.
>>  Thanks!
>>  -emily lynema
>>  [1]
>>  [2] - community-driven, open source project to create
>>  a uniform API specification across all ILS products as well as code for
>>  individual connectors for each individual ILS system to implement that
>>  API. Jangle could serve as a reference implementation / binding for the
>>  DLF recommendations, or the recommended DLF functions could be
>>  implemented on top of Jangle and its system connectors.
>>  [3] For the Feb. 15 draft, see
>>  Wiki:
>>  Word:
>>  --
>>  Emily Lynema
>>  Systems Librarian for Digital Projects
>>  Information Technology, NCSU Libraries
>>  919-513-8031
>>  [log in to unmask]
>>  >
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ILS Discovery Interface Task Force" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [log in to unmask]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [log in to unmask]
> For more options, visit this group at
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Emily Lynema
Systems Librarian for Digital Projects
Information Technology, NCSU Libraries
[log in to unmask]