Home | Public Area
#00114 Comment Details - RP-6-201x_RFID-in_US_Libraries_rev_for_comment.pdf
| Document Information | |||
| Title | NISO RP-6-201x, RFID in U.S. Libraries (Draft for Comment) | ||
| File Name | RP-6-201x_RFID-in_US_Libraries_rev_for_comment.pdf | State | Draft |
| Date Added | 2011-05-09 15:22:54 | Revision Number | 0 |
| Submitter Name | Cynthia Hodgson | Size | 603K |
| Comment Information | |||
| Summary | ISO 28560-2 rather than ISO 28560-3 |
State (Disposition) | New (Unresolved) |
| Date Added | 2011-06-08 04:35:27 | Last Updated | 2011-06-08 04:35:27 |
| Submitter Name | Chuck Flaherty | Assigned To | Unassigned |
| Company Name | Public Library of Brookline | Response | None |
| Interest Category | Category | Substantive | |
| Origin | Public Review | Section, Page, Line | Section 1.7, Page 4, Line 36 |
| Item | Item Description | ||
| Submitter Comment |
It is not clear to me why ISO 28560-2 is being proposed and not ISO 28560-3. It is my understanding that there are very few libraries in the US currently using the first, and there are hundreds of libraries using the latter, with millions of ISO 28560-3 encoded tags currently in use. I understand that our system, and likely many others will not have a major problem in accommodating both data formats, but I do not understand why libraries should have to make such changes when the -3 (Danish model) has proven so effective and is in such wide spread deployment. |
| Submitter Proposed Solution |
Allow for the ongoing use of the ISO 28560-3 within the proposed NISO standard. |