Hi Gretchen!
Like you I am old enough to remember SIP being launched, and like you - when
working for Dynix I had to deal with 3M's request for the fees they wanted
to "certify" SIP compliance (or maybe they didn't do that over there?).
Anyways the ILS vendors have been trying to do the same thing to the RFID
companies now so what goes around... I wrote about it at some length on my
blog recently http://www.mickfortune.com/Wordpress/?p=577#more-577
A 3M developer certainly attended almost all the meetings we had when
developing BLCF and it would be fair to say that it is the RFID companies
that are trying to drive it forward. I was on a conference call with 3M US
when the whole SIP 3.0 thing kicked off and spoke at some length to Sue who
has been mostly driving the project. I did join in a couple of the calls
since (I get reminders to do so every time they come up) but to be honest
the timings weren't great for France and from the calls I attended the
development of SIP 3.0 is more of a SIP2.5 rather than a complete rethink. I
think we were more inspired by what ILS vendors were doing to make up for
the shortcomings of SIP - which was mostly web services - rather than
wanting to build a new version of SIP.
If we succeed in getting a common data standard but let the ILS vendors
disappear over the horizon clutching their proprietary APIs we may as well
not have bothered frankly.
No, no-one has suggested licensing fees, but they didn't first time around
either - until they did. I'm sure they have no intention of doing so this
time either but who can be sure about what the markets - and economic
meltdown - might do to people? It just feels safer having a charity, funded
by libraries, booksellers and publishers and having no commercial interest
in the market doing the work. That approach has worked well for the book
trade so I'm not sure why it shouldn't work for libraries.
I couldn't comment on financial incentives for ILS vendors to use SIP 3.0.
There have certainly been financial incentives offered for using proprietary
protocols though. Our old company spent a long time selling one RFID
solution in the UK to the exclusion of all others for that very reason.
(They don't now).
But over-riding all of that is the belief - among our group at least - that
SIP 3.0 (like NCIP) is too focused on circulation and we want to be able to
do more than that with RFID don't we? The "C" in BLCF is for communication -
not circulation. We have to stop thinking about RFID tags as if they were as
dumb as barcodes (even QR codes are more limited) and start recognising that
they have much greater potential than that. Or we've wasted our dollars.
At least, that's my view. :-)
Best wishes
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gretchen
Freeman
Sent: 02 November 2011 14:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RFID_LIB] SIP3
Hi Mick and Lori,
Great white paper on SIP. Having been around in the early days, it was 3M's
intent to create SIP (Standard Interface Protocol at that time) so they
could stop screen-scraping from every ILS. Their self-checks were a support
nightmare because of the burden of modifying every station (hands-on sneaker
net) every time any ILS changed. Since 3M owned 80% of the security market
here in the US at that time, the self checkout market hinged on disarming 3M
magnetic strips on self checks. 3M benefitted from having the SIP protocol
adopted by the ILS vendors who then became resellers for 3M self checks
costing $25,000 per station. Libraries benefitted when competitors at last
entered the self checkout market and later when RFID security became a more
affordable alternative.
In your view, if 3M is as invested in the BLCF standard as their
participation in the RFID Alliance suggested, why are they leading
development of SIP 3.0? You stated that "There is also a slight concern
that SIP 3.0 is not guaranteed to be an 'open' protocol since it will remain
the intellectual property of 3M." Have there been indications that SIP 3.0
will require licensing fees to 3M? Are there financial incentives for ILS
vendors to adopt SIP 3.0 over an open BLCF standard?
Gretchen L. Freeman
Associate Director for Technology
Salt Lake County Library Services
2197 E. Fort Union Boulevard
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121-3188
Office: 801-944-7527
Cell: 801-503-7201
[log in to unmask]
www.slcolibrary.org
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mick
Fortune
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 8:28 AM
To: 'Lori Bowen Ayre'; [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]; 'Discussion List for RFID in
Libraries'
Subject: Re: [RFID_LIB] SIP3
Hi Lori
Gawsh...thanks for that! :-)
I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone and remind everyone on both
sides of the pond that CILIP's London conference on RFID in Libraries is
next Tuesday the 8th. The conference hashtag is #RFID11 if you want to
follow, catch up or join in during the day. Starts at 09:30 GMT(UTC) and
runs until 16:30.
Lots of speakers on all things RFID - from sorters to smartphones.
BIC and Bibliotheca-Intellident will also be presenting on the BLCF
protocol.
Best
Mick
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lori Bowen
Ayre
Sent: 28 October 2011 21:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RFID_LIB] SIP3
Hi Beth,
There's a group of people involved in SIP3 development. I haven't been
active but I'm a member of the group. You may be able to get involved or at
least get access to the documents and discussions by requesting a login from
[log in to unmask]
I've attached the latest version of the SIP3 specs...it is still very much
under development.
Anyone interested in communication with the ILS/LMS should also check out
the work of the BIC (Book Industry Communication) in the UK. They have
developed their own interoperability standard (separate from any
corporation) and it is intended to expand SIP2 plus take advantage of some
of the opportunities now available to libraries using RFID tags.
I strongly recommend this article in particular "SIP and the BIC Library
Communications Framework", available from http://bit.ly/s5OuCI. It is
written by Mick Fortune. He explains how the framework came to be and why
libraries should support it. And more importantly, why libraries should be
demanding that their vendors support it!
SIP2 and SIP3 and NCIP are not necessarily the only games in town.
Lori
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lori Bowen Ayre //
Library Technology Consultant / The Galecia Group
Oversight Board & Communications Committee / Evergreen
(707) 763-6869 // [log in to unmask]
Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering,
workflow optimization, and materials handling
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Beth Carey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi - From the little I have read it appears that SIP3 will have greater
functionality than SIP2. Can anyone tell me or point me to recent news on
the development of SIP3?
Thanks!
Beth Carey
Director of Library Services
Shorewood Public Library
3920 N. Murray Ave
Shorewood WI 53211
414 847 2676 <tel:414%20847%202676>
www.shorewoodlibrary.org
_____________________________________________________
RFID_LIB mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/rfid_lib
Hosted by the Oregon State Library. The Library is not responsible for
content.
Questions related to message content should be directed to list owner(s) or
the sender of the message, by phone or email.
Technical questions? Call 503-378-8800.
_____________________________________________________
RFID_LIB mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/rfid_lib
Hosted by the Oregon State Library. The Library is not responsible for
content.
Questions related to message content should be directed to list owner(s) or
the sender of the message, by phone or email.
Technical questions? Call 503-378-8800.
|