As you may know, Galen and myself were invited to discuss the SIP 3 draft that 3M are preparing. SIP is the Standard Interchange Protocol (also called Standard Interface Protocol or Self-Issue Protocol in some documentation), used for connecting issuing terminals (or whatever) to Koha or other Library Management Systems. A draft has now been sent for us to vote on. We can agree, agree with comments or disagree with comments (or fail to vote ;-) ) If you have particular questions about things that caused you problems with SIP 2 and you think should be fixed in SIP 3, please ask me and I'll try to find the answer. If you'd like a general list of the changes or sight of the draft, let me know and I'll see what I can share under the various agreements I've made to see SIP 3. Of course, I hope that it'll be freely shareable once it's agreed, but I'd like it to be drafted as well as it can be before that. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work through http://www.software.coop/
On 6/28/2011 7:22 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
As you may know, Galen and myself were invited to discuss the SIP 3 draft that 3M are preparing.
On the one hand, it is really very nice that open source developers are being invited by 3M into this process (ditto for you inviting us in as well, to the extent that you're allowed to). ++ all around. On the other hand, I am wondering why effort on 3M SIP would be more valuable in the long term than comparable effort on the continued evolution (and adoption) of NCIP? I've read the March 2010 press release from 3M about the SIP 3 development process, and was a bit surprised to see that it gives a small nod to "ISO standards" but doesn't even mention NCIP. Is the NCIP development process broken? -- Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator South Central Library System (SCLS) <gregb at scls.lib.wi.us>, (608) 242-4716
I, for one, would like to lobby for keeping the focus on NCIP. In fact, I would like to know if anyone is working on developing Koha suport for NCIP at this time. And if not, who would be interested in working with me to sponsor such development? Lori =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant The Galecia Group // www.galecia.com (707) 763-6869 // Lori.Ayre@galecia.com <Lori.Ayre@galecia.com>Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering, workflow optimization, and materials handling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Greg Barniskis <gregb@scls.lib.wi.us>wrote:
On 6/28/2011 7:22 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
As you may know, Galen and myself were invited to discuss the SIP 3 draft that 3M are preparing.
On the one hand, it is really very nice that open source developers are being invited by 3M into this process (ditto for you inviting us in as well, to the extent that you're allowed to). ++ all around.
On the other hand, I am wondering why effort on 3M SIP would be more valuable in the long term than comparable effort on the continued evolution (and adoption) of NCIP?
I've read the March 2010 press release from 3M about the SIP 3 development process, and was a bit surprised to see that it gives a small nod to "ISO standards" but doesn't even mention NCIP. Is the NCIP development process broken?
-- Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator South Central Library System (SCLS) <gregb at scls.lib.wi.us>, (608) 242-4716 _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
On 29/06/11 14:41, Greg Barniskis wrote:
I've read the March 2010 press release from 3M about the SIP 3 development process, and was a bit surprised to see that it gives a small nod to "ISO standards" but doesn't even mention NCIP. Is the NCIP development process broken?
Partially yes, although most of the big proprietry systems participate in the NCIP process the number of practical applications of it is woefully small (and even less that might be called in production ). SIP for all its faults is being used for lots of off the shelf library equipment (often doing things SIP was never envisioned to handle). I think a lot of those equipment suppliers would be interested to see what SIP3 might offer. Colin -- Colin Campbell Chief Software Engineer, PTFS Europe Limited Content Management and Library Solutions +44 (0) 845 557 5634 (phone) +44 (0) 7759 633626 (mobile) colin.campbell@ptfs-europe.com skype: colin_campbell2 http://www.ptfs-europe.com
Greg Barniskis asked:
On 6/28/2011 7:22 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
As you may know, Galen and myself were invited to discuss the SIP 3 draft that 3M are preparing.
On the one hand, it is really very nice that open source developers are being invited by 3M into this process (ditto for you inviting us in as well, to the extent that you're allowed to). ++ all around.
On the other hand, I am wondering why effort on 3M SIP would be more valuable in the long term than comparable effort on the continued evolution (and adoption) of NCIP?
I've read the March 2010 press release from 3M about the SIP 3 development process, and was a bit surprised to see that it gives a small nod to "ISO standards" but doesn't even mention NCIP. Is the NCIP development process broken?
Others have suggested that SIP is much more widespread than NCIP. That's been the co-op's experience too. Personally, I don't much care which US corporation develops standards. I care more about how they do it. 3M have invited us in. NISO have not. It's not clear to me whether NCIP's process allows anyone who's not a NISO member to participate (I've read the NISO Procedures cited on ncip.info and I still don't know - I'm often a bit thick when it comes to bureaucracy) and there doesn't appear to be a membership class for non-library co-ops (even OCLC seems to have joined as a "large non-profit" rather than a group of libraries). While I'm not wild about SIP's by-invitation process, it'd be better than pay-to-play. To me, the killer thing is the copyright permission notices: although we're not allowed to develop SIP independently of 3M (boo!), we are expressly permitted to implement it. NCIP's notice is the usual "prior permission in writing" stupidity - anyone know if someone writing the NCIP code (is that from Evergreen?) actually had that, or if there's some other permission notice I've overlooked? But that's an abyss I'm not going to look into very soon. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work through http://www.software.coop/
participants (4)
-
Colin Campbell -
Greg Barniskis -
Lori Bowen Ayre -
MJ Ray