3M

3M’s eagerly awaited press release outlining their plans for SIP 3.0 finally arrived in my mailbox overnight. The statement – which may be downloaded here - is a bit light on details but recognises that something needs to be done to improve the integration of ILS (LMS) and RFID systems.
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

“Frankly it’s a mess.”

The words were from a respondent to the recent survey and they were in fact describing their difficulties with CD/DVD management but judging by my mailbox for some librarians they sometimes seem to apply to RFID in general.

In particular there seems to be some confusion about the announcement (yet to be followed up by a statement) by 3M about SIP 3.0. What does it mean, why does it matter?

Well in order to answer those questions it’s probably worth reminding ourselves how RFID is being used at the moment. That’s not quite as simple a question as you might imagine because, on a global scale, it’s being used in many different ways.

RFID is a very broad term used to describe a staggeringly wide range of applications, equipment, physical tags and complete solutions that are deployed to carry out tasks as diverse as tracking elephants to ensuring the integrity of drugs.

In the library context we can use RFID for both the items we want to use and the clients that want to use them. Borrowers might use RFID enabled ”Smart” cards; books CDs and DVDs will use tags. To make things more complicated still both the borrower cards and the item tags are supplied in a variety of formats, using different frequencies and have different data written on them in a variety of formats.

So it is, potentially, complicated.

On top af all this most libraries will have existing investments in automation – often in the form of a management system – the LMS (or outside of the UK – ILS) that may, or may not interoperate with RFID.

There are so many ways in which all these different elements might be combined that it’s impossible to discuss them all without losing the plot – and possibly the will to live. Most suppliers will tell you that their RFID solution is much simpler than all this suggests – and mostly, that’s been true – up to now.

So let’s try and make this all a bit more manageable.

In the UK, US, Europe and some parts of Australia suppliers and libraries alike have opted to use the HF frequency of 13.56MHz for library tags. Not everyone agrees but the main defining characteristic of those uniting around HF are that they interact with a management system of some kind. Since most readers of this blog use an LMS (or ILS) I’m only proposing to talk about these kinds of systems.

The tags themselves can be programmed in a variety of ways and, apart from some European nations, most other markets have not, until very recently, attempted to standardise the data that is programmed in any way. Why this was so remains something of a mystery to me. The fact that, even now, many libraries are either unaware or unconcerned about using standards baffles me even more. Even the suppliers – who might seem to have the most to lose – have recognised that a standards-based approach to RFID deployment will bring some major advantages.

The agreement by the RFID Alliance to promote and support a single data standard was a great step forward for two reasons. Firstly it creates a level playing field for the suppliers – and freedom of choice for the buyers but secondly – and perhaps more importantly – it creates an environment in which new players can more easily develop new applications.

Which is where the next component in the process comes in.

Almost every library in the world seems to have introduced RFID to improve (or introduce) self-service. It remains one of the quickest wins around. Add a “smart” tag to an item and all manner of things become possible. Multiple item issues, automated returns sorting, integrated security… it is, as my American colleagues would say – a “no-brainer”.

But changing from barcode to tag isn’t just substituting one kind of label for another (although many still seem to think that it is). Once items are “tagged” they are more easily managed via the tag. That means that all your operations should be RFID enabled – stock movement, weeding, accession – it’s a long list. And if you move stock around – or share resources with other libraries – it will be a whole lot easier if you use RFID to do it – so long as you don’t forget that your LMS/ILS also needs to be kept informed of what you’re doing.

So in order to make updating (and interaction) easier we need a way of sending information to and from the LMS/ILS. Right now that’s pretty much SIP, the Standard Interface Protocol invented by 3M to enable different LMS/ILS to talk to barcode-driven self service units back in pre-historic times. The protocol offers almost infinite flexibility in its implementation by allowing “extensions” and these have been seized upon by suppliers to create new functionality for a wide range of library operations.

So while we have started to straighten out the tag standards we haven’t yet begun to solve all the compatibility issues lying in wait for the unwary.

This isn’t a new problem. RFID and LMS/ILS companies (at least in the UK) have been working around the deficiencies of SIP for a while now. Fines payment  for example frequently requires both SIP and some other protocol working in tandem to function effectively. The “other protocol” of choice increasingly being web services.

Now if every RFID and LMS/ILS provider continues to work out their own solutions to these problems we will build a second Tower of Babel and risk creating non-transportable solutions that will make creating a single data model look like solving a child’s jigsaw puzzle. So, in the UK, we decided – and the “we” in question was the BIC/CILIP RFID committee – to see if we couldn’t find agreement on finding common solutions to this problem too. (A second impossible thing to do before breakfast!)

Now, strictly speaking, we have strayed well away from matters strictly RFID but the committee is the only place in our market where librarians meet RFID suppliers, meet LMS (ILS) providers, meet servicing companies (jobbers) to discuss technical issues on a regular basis and – having worked in pretty much all of these sectors – it has fallen to me to try and steer the ship safely home by the end of 2010.

The first objective will be to replicate existing minimum SIP 2.0 functionality within a web service (or set of web services). So many applications now depend on SIP that it would be foolish not to ensure that everyone can continue to benefit from 3M’s generosity.  After that the plan is to try and identify as much “common” functionality as we can across existing ILS/LMS platforms and define web services for those. This will hopefully help us build “many-to-many” solutions.

Now into the arena springs SIP 3.0. Not yet (we believe) fully formed, and still blinking in the bright new RFID dawn details of its composition are rarer than hen’s teeth at present, but the inititiative is as welcome as it is overdue.

SIP currently defines both a data protocol and the means by which it is communicated. That’s part of its difficulty in working with RFID applications since the technology is at its best when not confined to serial operation. However in the London meeting we agreed (3M included) that SIP 3.0 could equally well describe a web service as a serial protocol. Accordingly we agreed to keep 3M advised of everything we do so that they can – if they so wish – incorporate our efforts into 3.0.

So SIP 3.0 and web services may well become the same thing…but what about that “future of RFID in Libraries” bit?

Well to be frank that’s still a bit unclear - but what is changing is the scope of RFID systems to deliver new and innovative services as well as to change the way in which some existing functions are perfomed. Bringing us full circle are the many innovations being made in Asia – where RFID has often arrived ahead of the LMS/ILS, creating completely new and self-contained models - for circulation for example.

RFID enables us to interact with objects in ways that we have never been able to before. Data standards enable developers to find new ways to design library applications. Where those developers are currently working will probably determine the future course of many aspects of library management. That might be somewhere completely new…

• 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

J.E. Skip Driessen, the RFID Portfolio Manager for 3M’s Track & Trace Solutions Department in St Paul MN posted the following message on the US RFID list overnight (UK time):

“In response to the inquiries and comments posted today, Mick Fortune is completely correct!  

We look forward to participation and support from all vested parties in making this a reality.”

The UK working party on interoperability – of which 3M are a member – will be providing feedback on their progress with web service development to the SIP 3.0 project. There is of course no reason why SIP 3.0 and new web services should be in conflict – they could even be the same thing.

The UK group understands the need to ensure that the work we do on building new protocols protects everyone – worldwide – that has already invested in SIP (and that’s a lot of libraries!). The group decided at its first meeting that support for existing SIP version 2.0 is a minimum requirement.

We look forward to sharing our ideas and developments with 3M – and vice versa.

• 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

According to Marshall Breeding’s excellent website 3M HQ yesterday announced their support for ISO 28560. So far I have been unable to find the story on 3M’s own site but it’s good news to know that the US are backing the decision made in Bracknell and announced in October 2009.

The delay – and indeed the nature of the announcement – does raise a slight concern about the nature of 3M’s development plans. I think we all believed the original statement, which had the added force of being agreed with the newly formed “RFID Alliance”, had already given us a clear statement on 3M’s postion regarding 28560 but perhaps this wasn’t the view from across the pond.

The press release is of course the usual excellent piece of marketing we would expect from a global leader in the library market but the wise reader will look beyond the breezier comments about the apparent simplicity of running as many different data models as you can shake a stick at – particularly those early adopters still waiting to deploy some of the expensive hardware they have bought, and if there was no problem, why did 3M and others spend so much time and effort (as the press release reminds us) finding ways to solve it?

But this is a time for rejoicing! At least one of the walls that restricted librarians freedom of choice appears to be finally coming down. Now we have to make sure that a bigger wall – that of proprietary communication protocols – doesn’t replace it.

• 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

A little more detail has emerged on the newly formed RFID Alliance. Andy Chadbourne of Intellident sent me the link to the original announcement on their website this morning. He tells me that over 1300 hits have so far been reported – very good news.

Clearly there are others more alert than I out there, so might I make a plea to anyone spotting such a story to post the link either here or on the RFID list for us all to share?

• 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 press release from Carolyn Long at the McOnie Agency reached me via a somewhat circuitous route this evening.

Informally I learned some time ago that a statement of this kind was being planned by the UK’s main RFID suppliers some time ago but one company was apparently not co-operating at that point in time so the message has been delayed until now.

It is obviously good news for the UK library community that the main suppliers have seen fit to back up the commitments they made back in January and April (and widely reported on this blog, the UK RFID list and by BIC and CILIP at the time).

It seems a pity that the suppliers felt unable to recognise the huge contribution that BIC, CILIP and the library community have made to this process  but we should all rejoice in the news and look forward to even greater co-operation as we move to the next phase of RFIED development. BIC announced today (by an amazing coincidence precisely one minute earlier than this email was sent out!) that the RFID group will meet again early in the new year to review the data transfer protocols driving the new standard.

3M’s announcement follows:-

…………………………………………..

 3M joins other major players to support adoption of technology in UK libraries

For the first time in the UK market, an alliance of leading library suppliers including diversified technology company 3M, 2CQR, Axiell, Bibliotheca, D-Tech, Intellident, and Plescon Security Products, have come together to support the ISO 28560 tag data standard and the UK National Profile that relates to how this will be implemented in UK. The soon-to-be-released standard will help Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) take a huge step towards becoming a universally adopted technology in UK libraries. 

In forming the Alliance, each member has committed to help deliver ISO-based solutions to the library community and achieve the ultimate goal to make all library items interchangeable between libraries, regardless of the self-service equipment deployed. The benefits of this agreement could be instrumental to the wider public use of library facilities, as the loaning and returning items could be completed at different venues, allowing for much greater flexibility.

The move to form an Alliance has been made possible by the development of the new standard from the global ISO standards body. ISO/DIS 28560 relates to how information is stored on an RFID tag and, as a result, all new tags can be read in the same way, allowing interoperability of disparate self-service solutions.

The agreement is a breakthrough for the use of RFID technology in libraries as it will provide a single standard that every member can work to. The Alliance between these leading vendors demonstrates that although competing at a solution level, they share a common belief in promoting standards and recognise that tagged items should be interchangeable between libraries.

Importantly, for existing customers of the Alliance suppliers, each has committed to supporting their historical customer base with the move to the new standard as and when required.

With the Alliance agreement in place and ISO/DIS 28560-2 setting the standard for all future tags, the next logical step is for libraries to act on this to further improve their services. The development and wider acceptance of RFID is growing at a pace, with the UK now the market leader in the deployment of innovative technology.

Paul Sevcik, Senior Product Development Specialist for 3M and a member of the ISO working group responsible for the standards comments: “The development of the ISO 28560 family of standards is critical to the continued growth of RFID applications in libraries and to providing a return on the library’s investment in RFID.  We are very excited about this Alliance and the commitment of the players involved, to make interoperability a reality for our customers.”

Members of the Alliance will be in attendance at the RFID in Libraries Conference, organised by CILIP and sponsored by 3M, which takes place on 10 November 2009 in London.

3M is a leading supplier of technology solutions to libraries. The company offers a wide range of options to suit all libraries, including RFID systems, SelfCheck systems, Tattle-Tape Security technology and applications, detection systems and circulation accessories.

• 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

It’s difficult to assess the real significance of the complaint 3M have made against Envisionware in the US. Filed back in June it seems to have raised little interest, and even less concern amongst US librarians which probably reflects their greater understanding of US Patent law. Like most legal documents I find it a bit difficult to understand and it contains many references to other patents and documents that will take some time for lawyers to interpret and, because this is America, someone will lose. Let’s hope it’s not libraries.

Exactly what 3M are complaining about seems to centre around two products being sold by Envisionware as part of their RFID offer to libraries. These are respectively their Library PDA and One-Stop Kiosk. Both appear to offer functionality remarkably similar to others being offered in the UK and Europe.

Not being a lawyer I can only offer a layman’s view of the case, and not being versed in legalese I choose to focus on the outcomes that 3M are seeking rather than the means by which they pursue them. That seems very clear – to stop Envisionware from selling two products offering similar functionality to their own. The justification for doing so seems to be contained in para 13 of the complaint where it states that:

“In the mid-1990s 3M began a multi-year, multi-million dollar research and development project to improve library systems technology. One part of 3M’s effort centered on creating pioneering functions that enhance self-service library systems, such as 3M’s SelfCheck™ Systems. The other part focused on the development of Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology for the library environment. Together, 3M’s efforts resulted in the technology and intellectual property at issue in this lawsuit.”

A statement that is breathtaking in its scope. It is worthe remembering that self-service in libraries has been around (even in the UK) since at least 1981  and RFID in libraries is claimed to have begun in Singapore in 1999 by Logitrack.

What matters to libraries though is not so much the accuracy of the claims that 3M make in their complaint but the possible consequences of their success. Whilst we have received several assurances from 3M about the continued free use of SIP – the 3M protocol driving most of the world’s self-service systems - on the UK Library RFID list over the last 24 hours we are still no wiser about their attitude to other RFID suppliers offering shelf-check, store and forward and fines and fees payments (the three specific areas of complaint in the action).

If 3M successfully claim their right to exclsuively offer such functionality – based on the claims made in para 13 – it would seem to be “Game Over” for the US Library RFID market. What then happens elsewhere is still unclear.

No date has yet been set for the hearing. Buyers of RFID systems are advised to read the complaint for themselves.

• 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