Integration

Looking into a problem being experienced by a UK Public Library service last week I was struck once again by the apparent reluctance of librarians to complain about the systems and services in which they have often heavily invested. continue

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

I just posted a very useful piece written by Alan Butters and Paul Chartier in response to a question asked on the US RFID list concerning UHF tags. Alan and Paul are two of the world’s leading authorities on RFID standards so this summary is compulsory reading for those of us with an interest in how the technology is developing.

In the library context the actual RFID technology to be used is, of course, a key element to consider but maybe not the only one? I think there might be at least three overlapping areas that have to be considered by anyone thinking of making, what is likely to be, a fairly major investment in a library RFID solution.
continue

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Last week I was lucky enough to be invited by Linda Davies of the University of Cardiff to come and see the progress they’ve been making at the Biomedical Sciences library with RFID enabled shelving. Paul Dalton and Darren Ratcliffe came along to answer technical questions. I am grateful to them all for a very interesting visit.
continue

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

The last meeting of the BIC/CILIP RFID committee began looking more closely at the ways in which improved communication between existing LMS and RFID systems might be improved by examining the existing methodologies and seeking improvements.

With RFID initially being deployed in support of self-service operations most solutions use 3M’s SIP protocol as the primary data transport mechanism between LMS and RFID systems but for some time now there has been some unhappiness on the part of libraries and RFID suppliers with the protocol’s perceived deficiencies in handling some aspects of the circulation process – in particular in handling financial transactions.

Added to that, the fairly loose device of allowing essentially unregulated “extensions” to SIP to be created by pretty much anyone who wishes has resulted in a protocol that – whilst still essential – is now seen by some to be holding back the pace of development of RFID.

Some LMS providers, especially those relatively new to RFID, and even to self-service, have been reluctant to develop support for what they see as “old” technology. This reluctance has given rise to the creation of new means of handling some RFID based transactions – with web services being prominent among those now being used in conjunction with SIP to provide better financial management for example.

Aware of these developments, but also mindful of the large number of non-RFID installations dependent on SIP (in both self-service and other areas of library operations) the committee felt that now was a good time to review existing options with a view to both regularising existing practices as well as creating a platform of services upon which future systems might be built.

As a first step the meeting agreed to create a smaller working party to examine the existing SIP 2.0 functionality and to create a common set of web services to replace its present base functionality. The plan is to have these services in place by the end of 2010.

Given the nature of SIP – and its extensions – the committee wants to get as much feedback as possible from the market, especially existing users, about their present use of SIP, and any known limitations of which they may already be aware.

3M mentioned at the same meeting that the USA were about to issue a statement about the development of a version 3.0 of SIP. Seen by them as a pragmatic alternative to the rather slowly emerging NCIP protocol for self-service their intention is to revise and revamp SIP to meet the new demands of the market.

The meeting welcomed this announcement – which was confirmed as being imminent by the US office a week later but has yet to appear – and suggested that the definition of SIP 3.0 could just as readily define a web service as another serial-based protocol, i.e. the functionality to be delivered could be the same in either scenario and agreed to keep 3M informed of our work, hopeful that this spirit of co-operation would be reciprocated.

I was asked to provide the focal point for this undertaking and, as a first step, to use all the avenues of communication open to me to garner input from the market. This post appears on both the UK RFID list and my blog – please pass it on to anyone you know who might be willing to contribute.

So what we are seeking from you are details of any extensions to SIP 2.0 that you may be running on your site, together with any known deficiencies of the protocol preventing you from deploying additional functionality.

Just to remind new readers the BIC/CILIP RFID committee currently includes all of the members of the RFID Alliance, many early (and some late) library adopters of RFID, representatives from most of the library materials supply chain, and the library systems market. So it’s about as representative a group as we can construct.

We still need your help though!

Thanks a lot

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Earlier this week I mentioned that Bibliotheca have announced a new memorandum of understanding with Civica.

Last night I was delighted to see the following reply from Johannes Rogg, Managing Director of Bibliotheca’s UK company posted on the UK RFID list:

“Hi Mick,

Thanks for your valuable comments. I fully agree with your statement, that HF is currently the frequency of choice for libraries; this is a main reason for this announcement.

With regards to your question on encryption I have no idea where this rumour is coming from, but Bibliotheca currently supplies to specification required by customer and market and our standard supply is the Danish data model with no encryption. Our BiblioChip technology enables us to support multiple data models in the same deployment and to rewrite chips on new models including the upcoming ISO standard on the fly.

One more word to you blog entry from yesterday, which I enjoyed reading very much:

You say. “To overcome this gap Civica is partnering with Bibliotheca to offer our fully standardized HF solution based on the BiblioChip technology and our experience and proactive standardization policy in this area.”

…which appears to imply that all Civica’s existing HF based installations are not standards based.”

As you know UK market is relatively standardised and will be more so when we can adopt the ISO standard and the UK profile. World-wide things are broader and its important for Bibliotheca as a world-wide player to meet these requirements whether for tags, interfacing standards or elsewhere.

Equally as a supplier it makes our life easier of standards are adopted so please keep evangelising standard such as ISO 28560-2. Success in broadening adoption is good for libraries and suppliers and will reduce costs for all in the longer term.

Best regards

Johannes Rogg
Managing Director

Bibliotheca RFID Library Systems Ltd.

I posted a brief reply to the list but as most of the points he was answering related to those made here I thought it might be helpful to post his reply here as well.

I asked whether Bibliotheca encrypted any of their data – a question we asked everyone who attended the meetings that established the UK data model back in 2009. Bibliotheca had not been present at that meeting so it seemed reasonable to ask them now. Apparently there is a rumour going around that some Bibliotheca sites have encrypted data. Well frankly it’s a bit more than a rumour – some libraries with Bibliotheca systems do have encrypted data (they have written to tell me so) - but no-one seems to know why. To be fair to Johannes he says that they prefer to adhere to standards – but also implies that they will always do whatever the customer tells them.

I’ve heard that argument from other suppliers.

Now I happen to believe that many librarians aren’t very sure of their ground here (because they tell me they’re not) and that many have previously asked for things that aren’t necessarily a good idea. I also happen to think that suppliers have a duty of care to advise when an idea might not be such a good one.  I’ve lost a lot of business that way .

My main point – that Civica already have an HF RFID solution in the UK – wasn’t really answered at all. Instead I am reminded that it’s a big world and people elsewhere have different needs (with no apparent irony) and that Bibliotheca have a product that meets all of them. Readers with long memories may remember that I commented on this product when it was launched in the US. No-one answered my concerns at the time, maybe they will now?

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

The following is the text of a post I made this morning to the UK’s Library RFID list. There has been a lively and wide ranging debate on the list over the last week with contributions from almost all the players in the library RFID game.

In trying to draw togther the threads of the various arguments I wrote the following piece to try and explain why I personally feel that we cannot ignore the role played in RFID development by the LMS/ILS companies – despite their apparent lack of interest in the subject.

For the detail, please join the list – links at the side of this page – it’s free and open to all but read the rules before you post!

……………………………………….

I am often accused of being too sympathetic to LMS(ILS) suppliers – although strangely never by the suppliers themselves…

Being fairly thick-skinned (or pig-headed if you prefer) I didn’t really consider the veracity of such claims until now. However the postings at the end of last week, combined with being bedridden for most of the weekend, have given me more time for reflection.

My conclusion. You will not be surprised to hear, is that I don’t think I AM sympathetic to LMS suppliers. But I DO think we have no choice but to consider them, whether they reciprocate or not.

I think the contributions over the last week all reflect where our individual comfort zones lie. We are all trying to persuade each other that our concerns are the “right” ones – and we are all, collectively, probably right. But we have to try and get inside each other’s heads if we are going to succeed. And not just the technicians…

Ivar reassured us on Sunday that if we buy our RFID from the right companies UK libraries may still emerge from the dark ages and join their European neighbours in Elysium. (Sounds like a sales pitch to me. J) Besides at least two of the companies he names already operate in both the UK and the US (through agents) – so why haven’t we already seen these benefits? Maybe there’s another reason? But everything he says about the inventiveness of the RFID market is nonetheless true.

John and Mike look for a solution that fits LA ICT policy guidelines. Which is of course is what they are supposed to do. But those with long memories will know that library automation has always been something of a “rogue” application. Most libraries used to have their own IT skills within the library because the systems were that complex – and that fundamental to day to day operations – and they still are. LMS make demands on ICT managers that keep them awake at night – self-service and EDI punching holes through the firewall, unpredictable network loadings, it’s no fun is it?

Paul explains the importance of hardware and the role of standards in delivering RFID systems of the future. Paul is often criticised for mentioning airport baggage handling rather too often but I think the comparison reflects his frustration with the rigidity of existing library systems. In an airport the movement of bags does not depend on access to the flight schedules (maybe a poor analogy but the best I can think of right now). In a library the whereabouts of an item has a MAJOR impact on the catalogue. But Paul is also right to remind us of what might be possible.

But I believe that whether we like it or not – and indeed whether we recognise it or not – it is the LMS that currently has a stranglehold on delivering library functionality. Even self-service doesn’t work without it.

That’s why I think the LMS is important (the 500lb gorilla that we tend to ignore). Not because of any sympathy I might have for many old friends working in the sector. But of course, that’s me speaking from within MY comfort zone…

So where now?

With RFID self-service safely ticked off the list of things to do libraries are now starting to consider what they have done and how else we might derive benefit from having done it.

I think we are very much at a crossroads in library RFID development. We can choose to we continue to use it as merely a different kind of barcode, or we can get serious about the true potential of the technology.

Getting serious will not be easy. As John, Paul, Mike and Ivar (sounds like a pop group doesn’t it?) have suggested there are a huge number of issues to be decided along the way.

Those libraries using RFID for self-service already might reasonably wonder at this point what all the fuss is about? After all we’ve been using it for self-service for years now without any real difficulty haven’t we?

This contentment partly reflects the stability of the self-service application and the way in which it uses RFID. Let’s be clear. RFID self-service is not a truly integrated service. It uses a (really quite old and clunky) protocol to communicate with the LMS that has been around for about 20 years – SIP. All that RFID systems have to do is read a barcode number from the tag for self-service to work. They could do that just as easily with the barcode itself. The additional benefits that RFID offers over barcodes stem not from the system but from the technology.

So how DO we derive more benefit from RFID? Surely libraries that have already spent/are spending so much money on it want more for their money?

What has been done already? Ivar hints at the inventive nature of RFID companies in developing solutions that go beyond self-service – and they are legion – globally speaking. It’s difficult not to applaud their enterprise, but in the UK, US and Australia this has often been achieved by adding extra elements to SIP – and SIP is a commercially owned protocol (by 3M), NOT a standard. Plus too many different versions of SIP and we’ll be back in John’s OSI nightmare…

Another favoured route has been to add data to the RFID tags to create new functionality – as in Norfolk. Each step along that road makes our tags more proprietary of course and even Ivar grudgingly agrees that having a common standard would make life easier.

I have never suggested that a common data model is some kind of panacea. What I DO know is that if we are ever going to get engagement from LMS (and other application providers) in this market, it will be a whole lot simpler if they have only ONE model to worry about. And that’s in addition to all the other benefits that adopting a common model can deliver. But the standard itself is only a small part of the picture.

So how do we deal with the “realpolitik” of UK library management system provision? It’s been very hard to get the attention of even the “domestic” suppliers with a few honourable exceptions. The American origins of many UK systems, slows their progress in this area for reasons well documented elsewhere, so getting their attention will be harder still. (The NISO meeting in Boston in October looking at the future of LMS(ILS) has no RFID component in its agenda.)

I can think of two possibilities. We can try and work through the existing agencies to develop a “standard” approach (if not an actual standard). As Ivar points out, LMS design varies so much that a single methodology is unlikely to be deliverable. Maybe something more closely resembling a common SLA might be a more achievable goal? BIC has already begun work in this area.

A more Machiavellian approach might be to create a competitive advantage for one of them that the others have to follow. (Well they’ve been doing that to us for years!) There are signs that this process may already be happening in the partnership approaches being taken by some RFID and LMS suppliers. But  unless one emerges with a “de facto” standard (like 3M did with SIP) that approach risks repeating the RFID tag scenario – with everyone building their own solutions. Besides a serial communication protocol is unlikely to deliver a 21^st century solution.

The “third way” (there’s always a third way) would of course be to abandon our existing systems altogether and implement a new solution with RFID “designed in”. Which I think currently gives us a choice of one.

What are the chances of us seeing new players entering the market with purpose built RFID LMS solutions? Well how much spending power do we think libraries are likely to have in the next few years?

Would you make that investment?

Whether we like it or not I think we have no choice but to conclude that any future use of RFID in our libraries has somehow to work with the LMS. How well that works, and how integrated that future might be, will be determined – as it always is – by market demand.

Over to you then..

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Judging by the emails I have received reaction to my latest ramblings in the Gazette is pretty mixed. Somewhat to my surprise there is quite a bit of support for the notion that RFID should indeed replace the LMS(ILS).

I still think that’s something that needs more thought. Existing systems represent significant investment for libraries and the introduction of something as radically different as RFID could chnage things in unexpected ways.

The undoubted success of RFID self service has somewhat obscured the fact that library stock in the RFID library simply “works differently” from those using barcodes. With so many new and exciting RFID products appearing on the internet day by day it is not at all surprising that companies supplying the equipment should be eager to sell these to their clients. Indeed the libraries themselves are often the prime movers in pushing for innovation.

And that’s a good thing of course, but (of course there’s a “but”)

Out there in RFID world, where cats can be seen leaving their home in Oregon thanks to RFID and Twitter, the technology is generally the servant of the application. Somone identifies a problem, and RFID is used as part of the solution. So an application is written – built around RFID – to provide it.

But what libraries are doing  is effectively “retrofitting” RFID to applications that were most often designed and written – by a different supplier - before anyone in a library had even heard of it. So there is a potential disconnect between the application’s design and the  operational technology. A bit like adding an outboard to a pick-up.

This never mattered with self service of course. The rules by which it operates were already well established and understood – even standardised – and the tags were only used as “smart labels”. Now things have changed/are changing. The labels can carry data and interact in different ways and the need for libraries – and their suppliers - to understand the implications have never been greater.

Maybe someone will design an RFID based solution for libraries that does more than circulate stock. Certainly some of the solutions coming out of Asia look worthy of closer inspection, but in the meantime I don’t think anyone should assume that someone else is necessarily thinking through all the issues involved in marrying up RFID enabled stock to your OPAC for example. They may be, but it’s always a good idea to check.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Just received the latest copy of Talis News and pleased to see a continuing enthusiasm for RFID and in particular offline self-service. More libraries opting for Talis Bridge Pro in the current issue, joining the serried ranks of public libraries offering 24/7 access to their collections.

One thing still puzzles me about all current “offline circulation” solutions. So far as I am aware none of them, including Talis, offer anything more than simple transaction logging. Talis Bridge Pro also offers simpler system updating on reconnection. Which is great. But one suspects it’s not quite what libraries need.

There is a great deal of evidence in discussion forums (Talis and others), on the RFID lists, and elsewhere on the web that offline circulation is not meeting the expectations of its users. Phrases like “it will literally allow anyone to borrow anything” tend to recur.

Which makes its popularity seem a bit odd doesn’t it?

Academic libraries seem less exercised about this problem than their public library colleagues. Perhaps because underage borrowing is less likely to occur on campus. But shouldn’t public libraries be just a little concerned about that possibility? Norfolk Libraries certainly were, and worked with their RFID and LMS suppliers to use a field in the tags to “flag” non-loanable items. A methodology we hope to incorporate in our use of the new data standard later this year.

Until LMS and RFID companies truly realise that tags are not simply some kind of new barcode label but a means of creating “intelligent” stock (and therefore more intelligent solutions) there is, I believe, only one other way to solve the problem of system downtime.

Throw away your existing LMS and opt for one of the alternatives on offer in the Far East that have been designed from the ground up to use RFID.

Of course solutions like this are completely proprietary and offer no compatibility with any existing systems you may have. In this example they don’t even use the same RFID frequency as that most widely used in Europe and the USA, but it might be dangerous for the LMS market to continue to ignore what they’re doing…

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post