> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:09 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Open, public standards v. pay per view
> standards and usage
>
> Houghton,Andrew wrot
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
So why do people keep running new standards thru organizations like ISO
that lock them up behind a pay system? It's probably better to run them
through NISO first where they will be freely available, then run them
through ISO where ISO can lock them up for the people who
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Bill Dueber
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:45 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Open, public standards v. pay per view
> standards and usage
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 20
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
> Not saying you're wrong Ross, but it depends. People adopted MARC-XML
> by looking at the .xsd without an actual specification. Granted it's
> not a complicated schema however, and there already existed the "MARC 21
> Specifications for
[CODE4LIB] Open, public standards v. pay per view standards and
usage
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Ross Singer
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:07 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Open, public standards v. pay per view
standards and usa
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Ross Singer
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:07 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Open, public standards v. pay per view
> standards and usage
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 a
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of
Congress wrote:
> Ross, if you're talking about the ISO 20775 xml schema:
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso20775/ISOholdings_V1.0.xsd
>
> It's free.
It's also not a spec, it's a schema. If the expectation is that
people are actually goi
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 09:34:57PM -0400, Ross Singer wrote:
> RDA, I think, might also suffer from this problem.
I had assumed that Walter was collecting examples to highlight the
idiocy of the RDA wall.
From: "Ross Singer"
Well, it's not a great example, because I don't have a
'counter-example', but I think it will remain to be seen if ISO 20775
goes anywhere if it, too, remains behind a pay wall. If an open spec
were to come along that allowed the transfer of holdings and
availability informa
Well, it's not a great example, because I don't have a
'counter-example', but I think it will remain to be seen if ISO 20775
goes anywhere if it, too, remains behind a pay wall. If an open spec
were to come along that allowed the transfer of holdings and
availability information that was decent an
William Wueppelmann wrote:
[snip]
I'm not entirely sure that TCP/IP and the other IETF RFCs became
established because of restrictions placed on OSI. I was under the
impression that OSI was also insanely complicated and that the IETF
standards were much cheaper to implement from a technical st
That might not be the best analogy. The most commonly-cited reason for
Beta losing out to VHS seems to be the initial limitation of Beta to
1-hour tapes, which wasn't enough to record a movie from TV, or to play
back a rented one without switching tapes partway through. By the time
Beta increas
Walter,
Well the obvious commercial example, sort of is that old favourite:
Beta (for which Sony charged a license fee and controlled who could
produce media) vs VHS (for which there was either no fee or a much
lower one, and not oversight of media producers).
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM, An
Have a look at the ongoing battles between MPEG4 and Ogg for the
browser video space. I don't know of your second criteria for b),
however - not many people are using Ogg (yet)
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/07/06/ogg-theora-h-264-and-the-html-5-browser-squabble/
http://arstechnica.com/o
Are there any blindingly obvious examples of instances where
a) a standards group produced a standard published by a body which
charged for access to it
and
b) a alternative standards groups produced a competing standard that
was openly accessible
and the work of group a) was rendered to
15 matches
Mail list logo
