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

Last Tuesday saw the (for me) long awaited CILIP RFID in Libraries conference at the King’s Place close by King’s Cross station in London. Having been asked by CILIP to put together the programme and open the event I was more than a little concerned that delegates would feel they had received value for money.  Beyond this I was hoping for some lively discussion and debate around the whole issue (no pun intended) of RFID use in libraries – specifically UK libraries.

From the comments received it seems reasonable to make the claim that almost everyone felt the conference was valuable and relevant. The number that felt there was too much of a technical nature was balanced by a similar number that felt there wasn’t enough – and that’s about as balanced as one might reasonably expect I suppose!

The word “buzz” was used quite often in tweets and emails received during and since the event and I confess it felt livelier to me than in previous years. Maybe there’s more fear around about the future of the profession?

Certainly there are plenty of libraries seeking to find some kind of salvation in the technology. The desire to invest first and ask questions later was sadly still very much in evidence in some of the conversations I overheard between suppliers and their potential clients. Indeed the first question asked at the end of the first session was “How much will it cost?”

How much will WHAT cost I wondered. An answer would have been possible had the question been about Mars bars or even what model of car to buy, but even then some idea of appetite and function would have helped formulate a response. But not about RFID surely?  Having prepared myself to answer anything from “why are there three parts to the standard?” to “why do you believe we need to re-examine communication protocols?” I was at a loss. RFID is a technology not a function. How much it costs depends on what you want to do with it.

From there on however, things improved and we were entertained, provoked and educated in equal measure by some fine presentations from stellar performers. The conference review will appear in the next CILIP Update – don’t miss it!

I hope that everyone understood what seemed to me to be the clear message from all sides – insist on the new data standard to protect your investment if you haven’t yet made the jump to RFID; consider migration if you want to benefit from future innovation if you have already.

Next day I was up early and on my way to Denmark – almost the spiritual home of RFID, at least in Europe. Having kindly been offered the chance to meet the architects of ISO 28560 at the Danish Agency for Libraries and Media, I was fortunate enough to have also been given the opportunity to visit two libraries that have been using the technology for many years.

My first host, at Lyngby, was Poul Tørslev-Thomsen. Despite my arriving well ahead of schedule Poul answered all my questions with great good humour and obvious enthusiasm for his topic. Lyngby had been almost the first library in Denmark to install RFID and had “made all the mistakes” already. Nevertheless, despite the pain of being a real early adopter the introduction of RFID had seen nothing but benefits for the library and its users (who were present in considerable numbers for a Thursday morning!).

During the five years they have had RFID Lyngby has replaced security gates, re-programmed tags and switched self-service units as standards emerged and more choices became available. It was interesting for me to discover that Danish libraries do indeed exercise the freedom of choice that using a common data model has given them – one of the outcomes predicted both at the London conference and in the “RFID Alliance” press release.

Lyngby has invested in self-service in a big way. Their automated sorter has two inputs linking to a single conveyor to which no less than 16 “ergo stack” trolleys are connected.  Two of the many self-issue machines were being used by two gentlemen even older than me – evidence of acceptance by the public I think, and security gates, originally designed by one company but now driven by technology supplied by another, protected the exits.

This is the Danish library world so often cited by UK librarians as being the exemplar of transformational technology in action. It is vitally important however  to remember WHY this has worked so well for the Danes.

Firstly they have had a common data standard almost from the beginning. The Danish Agency for Libraries and Media advised RFID suppliers that they would not endorse any solution that did not support a common standard. Without this endorsement there was virtually no market, and so the Danish Data Model was born. (If only we had a UK Library Agency….)

Secondly, and perhaps only slightly less important, is the fact that 85% of Danish public libraries use the same Library Management System (a statistic supplied to me by Henrik Wendt at Tårnby – my host on Friday). The Danish public library system already allows the public to borrow and return books wherever they please – a development no doubt made much simpler by a more unified approach to LMS and RFID supply.

RFID has certainly made its mark in Denmark though they still share many of the same concerns as do we, over the efficacy of CD/DVD security (although recent changes in tag design are helping), and neither library I visited used stock management devices (a point repeatedly made in London on Tuesday).

There has also been very little done on developing new interfaces to RFID tags. WG11, the group that brought us ISO 28560, has not been disbanded, partly because its members have seen the potential for the technology to play an even greater role in the modernisation of services through new applications and new communication methods. There was real interest in BIC’s recently announced project to re-examine and re-evaluate SIP, NCIP and web services as means of interacting with RFID.

So with the publication of the data standard in January UK libraries at last have the chance to reap the rewards from which the Danes have benefited these past five years. They also have a chance to work together with our European neighbours to build better systems in the future.

Will they accept the challenge and learn how to make the technology work for us?

Or just ask how much it costs?

• 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

WG11 – the working group tasked with delivering ISO 28560 met in London last week.

As always its deliberations are not published but I hear from reliable sources that the meeting agreed to allow the final stage – voting on the FDIS – to begin in November, closing in mid-January 2010.

Actual publication looks likely to be slightly later since work has to be done to ensure that the final version is both completely understandable, accurate and that most of the likely questions that might arise have been answered through FAQs.

Once the standard is finally published the real work begins. The Germans are already working on compliance and perfomance certification. It is to be hoped that the UK might join that process.

But beyond the perhaps slightly more “technical” issues is the future relationship between RFID and LMS(ILS) systems. One of my regular correspondents puts it this way:

“The LMS – RFID interface needs to be addressed, too.  It is no longer about using the bar code number (primary item identifier) as the sole conduit between these systems.”

Whether this conduit – barcode or not – continues to be SIP, or is replaced by a newer technology (as I suspect it will HAVE to be), will be discussed by the next BIC/CILIP RFID Technical Committee.

Before that of course we have the chance to start the debate at CILIP’s RFID in Libraries conference in London next month.

• 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

Good post on the UK RFID list from Steve Heywood last night. Can’t help but agree with his views about concentrating on solutions rather than the technology but I can see little evidence of this happening at the moment. I recently saw a presentation that indicated that a major investment in RFID would be made in 2010 to deliver the same benefits here as a Danish library the presenter had recently visited were enjoying. This kind of reinforces the “magic bullet” or “fairy dust” view that many libraries seem to have of RFID in the UK.  

Danish libraries have succeeded in getting so much from RFID because they all implemented it in the same way – and the key to that was the Danish Data Model. You only need the barcode to make a system work and in Denmark that’s exactly what they did. Not only do they have systems that use just the barcode data, but they all (well almost all) put that information in the same place on the tag – so anyone can use it.

So it works REALLY well.

 In the UK (and in the US and Australia) they didn’t do that. For reasons (that allegedly might not be entirely unconnected with gaining commercial advantage) every supplier was free to choose for themselves how they wanted to implement RFID solutions. So they did. In the UK some (two in fact) saw the advantages of using the Danish model  – but most didn’t. Some of them even went so far as to encrypt their data either to a) prevent anyone tampering with the data or b) protect their own interests – you decide.

These days, data – and not just the barcode number – is used in all kinds of ways. None of this is evident to users of self-service because self-service does only uses the barcode number – so where the data is, how it is written to the tag or whether there is any other data present –  makes zero difference to its successful operation.

The consequences for libraries of continuing this state of affairs will depend on how they plan to develop their service. It may make no difference whatsoever, or it could be catastrophic – or anywhere in between – it depends on a host of issues.  RFID companies can help you solve each of these problems with software, but for markets where no data standards have been used a better way might be to switch to a single standard, as the Danes, and many of their neighbours have done already.

And yet libraries are still ignoring the issue. Perhaps more disappointingly many RFID companies – despite signing up to support it (in the UK at least) - are too.

But let’s assume that things will change. Where do we focus our attention in order to gain best value from RFID? Is it a “nag list” for the LMS/ILS suppliers as Steve suggests?

Well a good nag never hurts but I need to clarify something I said on the UK RFID list. The choice to which I referred there is not exclusive. We can still choose to use RFID as a smart label and only use the barcode number (or something else) as an identifier. We don’t have to use all the fields the standard offers (or any of the optional ones) – indeed that is the UK recommendation from BIC. The key point is that, whatever we choose, we will all be using the same fields in the same way. If your LMS/ILS doesn’t “have an app for that” then you won’t get the extra features, that’s all.

So the challenge is, I think, twofold. Will suppliers see the potential to gain competitive advantage by using RFID more creatively (and consistently) and will libraries help them understand how they can do that?

• 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

News reached us last week that the latest round of voting on ISO 28560 had been completed with a massive vote in favour of adopting the three part standard.

Only one country voted against adoption of the standard – the USA. It appears that NISO and ANSI aren’t really singing from the same song sheet on this one since ANSI’s reason for voting ‘no’ vote seems to have been a reluctance to endorse the three part standard – on the grounds that, being in three parts, it’s not exactly a standard.

This is of course a perfectly valid view but it is rather confusing for many of us who had believed up to now that one of the main reasons there WERE three parts to the standard was, at least in part, a result of lobbying by NISO.

The good news is that the vote is unlikely to prevent the widespread adoption of ISO 28560 – in all three parts – later this year. I say good news because, although there are holes in 28560 that you could drive a bus through, it is – as I suggest in the latest issue of Panlibus (published by TALIS) the only data standard we have. In addition the UK National Profile – now published by BIC – ensures that those concerned with the effective operation of UK libraries have some guidance to help them get the best from the standard. The next steps – to define how best to use the profile – are being taken even as I write.

Our European neighbours, having had the foresight to adopt a common data standard long ago, are much more relaxed than we are in the UK where the need for 28560 – as soon as possible – is now well understood. The US market, for once trailing behind their transatlantic colleagues, need to make some key decisions about 28560 pretty quickly if they are to avoid the pitfalls that otherwise await…

• 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

Book Industry Communication (BIC) has launched a new accreditation scheme for organisations operating in the library supply chain and is inviting applications from library authorities, academic institution libraries, library consortia or individual special libraries; library stock suppliers; and systems suppliers and other service providers active in this marketplace.

The scheme, which is part of BIC’s e4libraries initiative, will enable successful organisations to demonstrate their commitment to electronic trading and other beneficial library technology. Beneficial technology chiefly comprises full-cycle EDI or other forms of e-trading with stock suppliers, but is often supplemented by implementation of RFID systems where appropriate and by efficient access to, and use of, bibliographic records, as well as the adoption of more efficient working practices in the supply chain.

Full details of the scheme and application forms can be found on the BIC web site . Applications will be judged by an independent BIC review group on the basis of self-assessment, supported by the evidence of trading partners and service providers, and will take into account qualitative considerations as well as statistical evidence.

Martin Palmer of Essex Libraries, Chair of the e4libraries steering committee and BIC board member, commented: ‘We hope that this scheme will provide a valuable focus for the e4libraries initiative, encouraging libraries and other related organisations to celebrate their successes in improving the efficiency of the library supply chain.’

Further information from Peter Kilborn on 020 7607 9021 or peter@bic.org.uk.

• 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

3M have advised BIC (who have advised me) that they would prefer to see element 7 included in the UK National Profile. Paul Sevick expressed his view that with the possibility of libraries lending new types of media in the future the ONIX format offers the most flexible option.

The other members at the April 27th meeting had agreed in advance to accept whichever of the three elements 3M wished to recommend so the UK National Profile now looks like this:

Data Elements

1. Primary item identifier

Mandatory in library usage (optional if the profile is being implemented earlier in the supply chain)
In the library context the primary item identifier will normally be an existing barcode number.

2. Content parameter

Mandatory in 28560-2: the OID index, (OID is the abbreviation for Object Identifier) – in effect a list of data elements present on the tag.

3. Owner library (ISIL)

Mandatory as defined by ISO 15511

4. Set information

Conditional. Where an item is comprised of multiple components the element will be mandatory. Absence of data will indicate a single item.

5. Type of usage

Optional. Where used the values defined in Annex B of the draft standard – included at the end of this document – to be used.

6. Shelf location

Optional.

7. ONIX media format

Optional.

8. MARC media format

Excluded

9. Supplier identifier

Optional. Annex C of the draft standard suggests that this should be a national list regulated and defined by some national authority – BIC were nominated or this role in the UK.

10. Order number

Excluded.

11. ILL borrowing institution (ISIL)

Optional as defined by ISO 15511.

12. ILL borrowing transaction number

Excluded.

13. Product identifier GS1

Excluded.

14. Local data A

Optional.

15. Local data B

Optional.

16. Local data C

Optional.

17. Title

Optional. Although viewed as primarily a supply chain element 3M requested its inclusion as they use this data in many of their existing implementations.

18. Product identifier local

Excluded.

19. Media format (other)

Excluded.

20. Supply chain stage

Optional.

Valid codes:

16 Manufacturer
24 Publisher
32 Distributor
48 Jobber
64 Library

21. Invoice number

Excluded.

22. Alternative item identifier

Optional. May contain another identifier as deemed necessary. The only item that was at all contentious. Decision (by show of hands) was to include it as optional.

23. Alternative owner library

Excluded.

24. Subsidiary of an owner library

Optional. Was seen as essential to the future development of consortia.

25. Alternative ILL borrowing institution

Excluded.

As we move toward the acceptance of both ISO 28560-2 and a UK National Profile for library operations the foundations for the future development of RFID use in libraries begin to look more solid!

• 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

New Home

Note: The blog, as you may have noticed, has moved to a new home. The old site was unreliable and sadly my skills as a blogger do not stretch to seamlessly redirecting traffic! The old site will close in a week or two.

New Momentum

Todays Library and Information Gazette gives a brief report of last week’s meeting on the front page. As convenor I think I should point out the slightly misleading statement that “all major RFID suppliers have committed themselves to supporting the new ISO 28560-2 standard” before anyone writes to complain. What the article should have said is that “all major RFID suppliers who were present” had made the committment. As I mentioned in a previous post D-Tech were regrettably absent and have yet to make their position known.

There are of course a number of companies supplying RFID solutions who were not at the meeting. One of these, Nedap, who as their name suggests, are based in the Netherlands but also operate in the UK wrote to me to support the group’s decision. If you’re not sure if your supplier was at the meeting you can check the minutes by following the link in the right hand panel.

There’s also been a surge of activity on the list this week. Mark Hughes – a list regular – has been promoting the idea of a co-operative effort to build a specification for RFID in libraries along the lines of the UKCS originally created by my erstwhile British Library colleague and fellow consultant Juliet Leeves. So far I am pleased to see the response has been generally very positive with Nick Lewis issuing a challenge(?) to CILIP to support the idea. We await their response…

In the meantime I have separate meetings coming up with both Mark and BIC to discuss broadly the same issue – where do we go from here? The adoption of a common data standard has been an obsession of mine for a while – almost to the exclusion of all other activity – but although its adoption creates the potential to deliver both improved services and greater choice, we can do so much more if LMS (ILS) suppliers can also be persuaded to use tags more creatively.

To do that will require more discussion and further agreements covering the available fields, potential sources of content and the data transport mechanism. All of which will need to form part of the “open specification” process.

Busy times ahead!

• 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