JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for LIB-RFID-UK Archives


LIB-RFID-UK Archives

LIB-RFID-UK Archives


LIB-RFID-UK@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LIB-RFID-UK Home

LIB-RFID-UK Home

LIB-RFID-UK  February 2010

LIB-RFID-UK February 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Discussing integration issues

From:

"Hughes M.J." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion List for RFID in Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:54:08 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (134 lines)

Sorry, but got to jump in here,

Mj, I admire where you are coming from in your stance, but feel you may have to soften the approach in terms of the practicality of the current arrangement, and the realities of the wider environment in which most of us operate if you wish to engage the 'mainstream' of libraries.. and there those of us in there that also have a positive approach to FOSS applications in libraries.  

The reality is that there exists now, and probably will be long term, a mix of proprietary & FOSS software in use across the board, so it shouldn't be a surprise that things like Word & Adobe are in use by BIC & many of its members, nor should be any kind of barrier since it's all about an element of choice being exercised and the balance of the market at the moment.

For the (last I checked) very reasonable associate fee that joining BIC incurs, you do get at least a platform to enter the discussion, and a ready-made forum *with existing suppliers & customers on board* within which to interact.  To my mind that alone makes it a worthwhile long term investment, and I would think other customers / potential customers would share that opinion.

Unless there's another alternative - and even if one were set up you'd have to work pretty darn hard to build up the level of engagement that already exists within BIC - then you'd be better engaging in the existing structure rather than bemoaning its lack of perfection from without.

I think you'd have quite a bit to bring to the discussion on integration, and a FOSS standpoint (certainly in relation to the LMS side) is under-represented in BIC, but its up to you to weigh the arguments here

This is not intended as a flame or criticism, but I'd like to see us all put the discussion of the discussion forum to bed so the (to my mind) important work of addressing integration issues can get back to the forefront.

Thanks

Mark



Mark Hughes
Head of Collections
Library and Information Services / Gwasanaethau Llyfrgell a Gwybodaeth
Swansea University / Prifysgol Abertawe
Swansea / Abertawe
SA2 8PP
Tel / Ffn : 01792 295026



-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion List for RFID in Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MJ Ray
Sent: 24 February 2010 15:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Discussing integration issues

This started out as a quick reply about our approach, OpenNCIP and BIC...

Mick Fortune wrote:
> Certainly it sounds as though the approach you're taking is different to
> anything currently on the market - and much more aligned with the way in
> which I foresee systems developing in the future.

That would surprise me, but it could be the case because we started
from scratch.  Our clients needed a cross-platform way to control RFID
devices and current suppliers seemed to offer Microsoft-only, which
upsets organisations which believe in openness or free markets.  How
else would people solve it?

> [...] So where we seem to be with NCIP is waiting for a sub-committee of
> an American standards organisation to decide how best to define a protocol
> that they only really use for self-service... Not great for the rest of the
> world that has either a) already given up on NCIP and moved on or b) is
> about to.

As I understand it, OpenNCIP started because of the same frustration,
but it was hosted by one company which has been subject of some
uncertainty recently, which isn't great and appears to have disrupted it.

> I can see precisely why you want to be involved in the whole standards
> process but I don't really understand your reluctance to join BIC in order
> to do so.

Basically:

 1. neither clients nor members of the co-op have supported the idea
so far and, ultimately, the co-op exists to serve them;

 2. BIC seems very vague about what members can do (which probably
contributes to the lack of enthusiasm among clients and members);

 3. BIC appears to go against our core values in two key ways:
  i. it appears to promote solutions which compete with ours, like
Adobe and Word (we are a general software company, not only LMSes);
  ii. it's pay-to-play and looks even worse ROI than CILIP membership
(which we haven't joined yet either).

The co-op is both an ethical business and operating in the more
competitive FOSS LMS market, so if we are going to charge a higher
price than our actual cost, we need the reason to convince our
clients.  BIC membership just doesn't convince libraries, as far as I
can tell.  At first glance, I don't see any FOSS LMS companies on
http://www.bic.org.uk/19/Members/ and only one co-op.

> There are some things we have to spend time and money on just to
> keep ourselves informed. How would you run the standards process
> without BIC?

Ideally, I'd find an open, vendor-neutral group to host it and develop
it through a coalition of the willing.  Off the top of my head, I
wouldn't like to pick one, but there are a few to choose between.

Practically, the legacy suppliers are all in BIC and probably not in
other associations.  So it may be better to open the BIC process, but
that requires BIC members and collaborators to drive it and I suspect
the same things which discourage us from joining also discourage other
cooperators from doing so.

So opening up UK library standards is not an easy problem, I accept!

> [...] You seem to be implementing Koha to speak
> directly to devices. So you don't need the middleware that currently drives
> LMS/RFID integration. [...]

Unfortunately, while the devices we install work another way, we still
have to talk to equipment from the legacy suppliers too.

(I do know other co-ops that make kiosks, but libraries don't buy RFID
self-issue kiosks from them yet: they buy kiosks from 3M or whoever.
I think it's been easier for people to see the benefits of an open LMS
than the benefits of an open self-issue terminal.)

> [...] There ARE tags out there
> that have defeated the labs at ALL of the RFID companies currently operating
> in the UK. They simply can't be decrypted. At least that's what I've been
> told in confidence by three members of the Alliance and at least two
> libraries. So don't bang your head against the wall for too long!

Oh, I've told the particular client that, but I'll keep banging until
we run out of things to try, as long as the client is OK with that
(but it still sucks that any library ends up in that position).

Anyway, please let me know other views on what I've written about BIC
membership.  At its most basic, how many library staff reading this
believe their library would pay higher prices for FOSS LMSes so that
its developers join BIC?

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray, member of www.software.coop Experts in web and GNU/Linux
(TTLLP # in subject emails = copy to all workers unless asked.)
Turo Technology LLP, reg'd in England+Wales, number OC303457
Reg. Office: 36 Orchard Cl., Kewstoke, Somerset, GB-BS22 9XY

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
November 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
June 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager