SIP

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

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

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

“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