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

Very much looking forward to this year’s conference! Interesting to see some of the new sponsors for this year’s event include manufacturers as well as solutions providers. With full interoperability finally beginning to look achievable might we expect this trend to continue?

What will the RFID market look like in a post ISO 28560 world? Will libraries continue to buy their RFID solutions in the same way as they buy their LMS systems – all from the same supplier – or will RFID companies divide into hardware and software providers? Or specialise in particular areas of operation?

LMS providers, at least those on this side of the pond, are also beginning to engage with the full potential of the technology. Axiell, TALIS and Civica have all been talking recently about working more closely with the RFID market and hopefully all three (and more) will attend this year’s conference. The dialogue between LMS and RFID suppliers seems to have finally begun in earnest, something that will ultimately benefit all library stakeholders.

If you have done something amazing with RFID over the last year don’t forget to let CILIP know. There is an annual award for outstanding work in RFID made by CILIP and nominations are invited on their website.

• 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

CILIP’s website and blog promoting this year’s RFID conference are now up and running! After meeting with John and Joan we are now very close to finalising this year’s agenda which will, I hope, have something to offer both for those unfamiliar with the technology and existing users looking for new ideas. It will, as ever, be the main event for everyone involved in this exciting technology in what looks to be a milestone year.

• 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 heard from John Woolley that this year’s conference will be held on Tuesday 10 November, and the venue is the King’s Place, which as well as conference facilities is the home of the Guardian and Observer newspapers. This high-quality facility opened just five months ago and is situated 150 metres from King’s Cross and St Pancras Stations. Its main entrance is on York Way beneath a distinctive undulating glass façade which is visible from the York Way exit of King’s Cross Station. Please click on the links for details of the conference facilities and a location guide.

Have received a great deal of very useful feedback from LIB-RFID members as well as via email and ‘phone and will be meeting with CILIP in two weeks’ time to finalise the agenda.

Make sure you keep Tuesday 10th November clear in your diaries!

• 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 read with interest the responses of the Twitterati to Bob McKee’s views on the stance CILIP should adopt toward social networking. To my horror I found myself feeling a little bit sorry for Bob. Having been openly critcial of his organisation’s failure to provide leadership on so many issues in the past it was unnerving to find myself feeling some sympathy for his views.

Possibly slightly more alarming however was the apparent suggestion – from Phil Bradley – that we “don’t live in a world where people have the leisure to take their time crafting a response” we live in a world where responses are measured in minutes. Does this mean there is no time for consideration that spontaneity and immediacy should be our watchwords? There seems to me to be an irony in that these views were expressed in a blog – a Phil Bradley “regulated space” where the urgency of the tweet can be ignored for a little while.

Watching the rest of my fellow twitterers queue up to give Bob and CILIP a good kicking made me wonder whether the technology isn’t encouraging the re-emergence of the politics of the playground. So the schoolboy in me decided to try and join in.

This proved not to be as simple as it was at Timbercroft JMI.

Having tried and failed to comment on Bob McKee’s blog – (I’m not a member so I’m not allowed to express my opinions on anything he says) – I decided to use twitter to send a DM to Phil Bradley instead. But he’s isn’t following me so was deaf to anything I might say. I spurned the invitation to comment on Phil’s blog. To do so would surely lack immediacy wouldn’t it?

So instead I thought about the problem before expressing an opinion. I realised that I was already working in a sector of the market being driven at breakneck speed by spontaneity. The rush to invest in RFID technology- ahead of any standardisation or real understanding of the consequences – could eventually cost libraries millions of pounds to put right.

If there are any libraries left to spend that kind of money.

The twitter community has moved on from such basic concerns however. Libraries as respositories of knowledge is such 20th century thinking.

I work in, what I am told by my fellow twitterers, is a very boring field. They’re right. It is. But being boring isn’t the same as being irrelevant and I have to acknowledge that CILIP – in their rather ponderous way – are at least trying to help me get the message across, whereas twitterers seem at times to speak only to each other, and about quite narrow issues. Being an ex-smoker the reaction of twitterers to those who don’t understand the addiction seems strangely familiar.

Now. How do I get all that into 140 characters…?

• 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