RFID - Changing libraries for good

Do librarians know what they’re buying?

admin — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:14:13 +0000

More concerns about ISO 28560-2 this morning.

Recently I’ve been pointing out the simple fact that, since none of the RFID suppliers have yet developed support for the new standard, none of them are supplying it. Last week I received two phone calls from third parties expressing concerns about their legal position in this regard, last night an email arrived from a library.

The RFID companies tell me that they are working on developing support and hope to have it ready soon. The concern expressed by my correspondent – and many others – is that contracts may be being signed on a false understanding of the present situation. Let’s be quite clear – NO-ONE is yet supplying ISO 28560-2 or the UK data model, not the RFID companies, the book suppliers or anyone else. This does not prevent solutions from working, it simply means that all of the benefits promised by the RFID Alliance’s very public statements about compliance are not being delivered.

I understand completely that libraries may make the judgement that it’s better to go ahead without using the standard but I am concerned that many of them are unaware that they are. My email correspondent even thinks it might be a failure in communication since despite saying,

“My confusion arose from asking for the standard and being told we are now using it.”

they go on to say,

“I’m wondering whether it was a breakdown in communication. A member of our staff did say we only wanted the barcode on the tag, but he was referring to the item description….. but then the company should have asked us for our ISIL.”

That’s a pretty big “breakdown”! Being told you have something that you don’t is a bit more than a breakdown in communication isn’t it?

Still despite the obvious conclusion that things may not be quite as they seem my correspondent goes on to say,

“Oh well, they have promised us that software for re-configuration at checkin/checkout is in the pipeline.”

Which perhaps explains why so few voices are being raised in concern? Maybe suppliers will deliver on the next promise – even though they failed to deliver the previous one?

When libraries began investing in RFID they believed they were buying solutions that were standardised, integrated and transportable. That all tags could be read by all hardware and that they had complete freedom to choose which suppliers to buy from. Pretty much none of that turned out to be true. If it was, why would the industry itself go to all the trouble of agreeing new standards to make many of these things possible? Don’t take my word for it, go and re-read the RFID Alliance’s statement issued last year.

I think, at the very least, if we’re not going to get the standard – yet(?) – we need to understand how that new solution to convert tags in the future will actually work, and who will bear the costs?

I have some questions about that too.

More on the EU Privacy Mandate to Standards Bodies

admin — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:22:12 +0000

Following yesterday’s request from EDITeur Paul Chartier posted the following helpful explanation of the exact status and import of this action on the US RFID list. .

“EU INITIATIVE ON RFID PRIVACY & SECURITY

A bit of background first. I have been working in the standards world for too long and can go back to the days when we made the ISBN machine readable – and even a bit before that with the ISBN. I have been working on RFID standardisation for quite a few years, and because of this been a member of the European Commission’s expert group on RFID, where I made the case for RFID for libraries and other key applications. A formal EU Recommendation was published May 2009 instructing Member States to take some action to ensure that privacy and security considerations were in place for all RFID implementations in Europe. Later the Commission issued a mandate to the European standards bodies (the pan-European – not national – equivalents of ANSI and FCC) to look at the current standards position and identify gaps that needed to be addressed to tighten privacy and security. The consultation document is the result of Phase1 of that mandate process. The Commission is also funding work to look positively at the RFID.

The consultation document itself has a strong bias towards adding privacy and security features. It is not a well presented document – and I can say that as one of the people contributing to the work. It was too rushed and there was not enough understanding of the technology by some of the privacy experts and lawyers. What is now needed is a robust response from the library community and I hope that this is under way.

So we are far from the end of RFID for libraries. There are a few technical issues that I assess will need to be addressed. There will be procedures to follow that add RFID to the types of issues that are already addressed for privacy of data. When it reaches Phase 2 – the standards making stage possibly early 2011 – this initiative will probably provide a roadmap for future developments for RFID for libraries. Handled the right way it should provide stepping stones to better systems.

I expect that the take-up of ISO 28560 and this EU initiative could result in an increase in the growth of the number of libraries adopting RFID. So it is good timing that all of this is coming together now. But the first step is to get a reasoned response to the consultation document and not let the lobbyist run amok with views that RFID tags can be read from space!

It also means that the stakeholders in RFID library systems (libraries, RFID vendors and ILS vendors) might need to get their act together a bit more.”

From past experience I know there’s a temptation to assume that “someone will be dealing with this” but this IS a serious matter, even if, as Paul has pointed out, it appears to be not quite as potentially terminal as it appeared when I received the request yesterday. Sometimes we need the experts to tell us more about what they’re doing on our behalf rather than us trying to read the runes at a distance – thanks Paul for doing just that.

So please follow the link and read the mandate http://www.editeur.org/57/RFID-in-Libraries/

EU issues public consultation document on RFID privacy

admin — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:00:33 +0000

Brian Green, Executive Director of the International ISBN Agency and EDITeur has asked me to help publicise the above document which may become a serious threat to the use of RFID in libraries. Rather than rehearse the arguments here I will simply direct you to the EDITeur site where you can read both Brian’s remarks and the original document.

This is a serious threat to the present and future use of RFID in libraries.

CILIP’s RFID Conference 2010 – Can you afford NOT to go?

admin — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:13:28 +0000

This year’s main RFID event for UK libraries will once again be held at the Kings Place in London on November 9^th. Last year’s event was billed as being the turning point for the technology with a new data standard about to be published, and the entire UK Library RFID market pledged to support the newly minted UK data model. Interoperability issues were finally being addressed and even the system specifications were available free of charge.

So how far have we come since then? More importantly, with so much now seemingly in place and with current financial constraints is there any justification for attending this year’s event? Well, as you might expect, I think the answer is a resounding “yes”.

There’s no doubt we’ve made progress, but sadly nowhere near as much as the market promised back in the heady days before the credit crunch hit. In these troubled times libraries have never been under greater pressure to deliver more services with fewer resources. Many see investing in RFID as a key part of their survival strategy. Buying your RFID solutions has never been more critical – or potentially more risky.

Why do I say “risky”? – Because most RFID solutions are still highly proprietary – working in one instance only, and not portable to another RFID/LMS supplier combination. If you think otherwise, you haven’t been following the debate. ISO 28560 has still not been published, and no UK supplier has yet implemented the UK Data Model. Come to the conference and find out why, and whether it matters.

Many libraries have been using the specifications published by ORILS and my own company in an effort to save time and money, without really understanding how to interpret the answers they receive with the result that many are confused or disappointed by the results. Come to the conference and find out what all those numbers mean, which system is responsible for managing loan policy and why offline circulation might not be quite what you think it is.

But there’s good news too. The industry is working hard to overcome these problems and some suppliers – both LMS and RFID – are actively testing ISO 28560 implementations with each other as well as developing standard web services protocols for better integration of the two systems.

Over the next few weeks and as a run up to this year’s conference I will be discussing some of these key issues and introducing some of this year’s presenters. We have probably the best line-up ever with the star attraction likely to be Marshall Breeding – library systems guru, author, and proprietor of the world-renowned Library Technology Guides website.

As the boundaries become ever more blurred between the work of the Library Management and RFID Systems, Marshall will be examining the current state of play and giving us his vision of the future for library management.

But that’s just one of the topics we’ll be discussing, dissecting and deliberating upon this year. Smart cards for national library access, iPhone apps to improve your library experience, and a library that runs entirely on RFID will all be on the menu.

There will also be case studies, advice for those seeking funding, and reports on the status of ISO 28560 and the UK data model, as well as progress updates from the team working on SIP 2.0 replacement.

You owe it to your library to get the most out of RFID; you owe it to yourself to make sure you choose wisely. If you’re thinking about buying RFID to enhance your library services this is one event you can’t afford to miss.

RFID Framework Agreements

admin — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:15:49 +0000

Earlier this week I was automatically forwarded a copy of TALIS Partner News from my former colleagues at 2CQR. I read with interest the news that ESPO had added another supplier to Framework Agreement 350 – RFID systems for libraries.

What made me raise a quizzical eyebrow (Roger Moore style) was the assertion that,

“This means that any public sector organisations considering RFID can approach (insert supplier name here) secure in the knowledge that ESPO has already undertaken all the initial investigations to ensure the company is compliant and appropriate as a supplier of RFID.”

I wondered how TALIS knew this? I expressed my surprise at the strength of TALIS’ endorsement for ESPO on Twitter and received in short order two “tweets” from TALIS staff asking me why.

I promised to blog about it later. So here it is.

Back in 2007 I had seen the original ESPO framework questionnaire and been a bit concerned at the vagueness of some of the questions it posed but also puzzled as to how some of them might have been answered. Questions like,

“Tenderers should comment on the data it is advisable / possible to put on the tag, e.g. licence plate only or bibliographic data.”

What was the thinking behind that question I wondered? Did ESPO have an idea of a “right” answer and were hoping to eliminate suppliers who unwittingly gave it? Or did they simply not know and were looking for ideas?

“The equipment should also be capable of operating in standalone mode should the LMS be unavailable”.

Well yes it should, but the questionnaire made no attempt to determine what level of service would be available in such an eventuality. I mean I can still use the radio in my car if the engine blows up, but it doesn’t make it much use for getting around. If I can still log transactions in my library – but have no way of knowing if any of them are legitimate – it’s not much of a system really, is it?

“Tenderers must state their approach to the adoption of any future international RFID standards and how backwards compatibility issues in applying such standards will be addressed.”

This looked like a very good question. So when the new standard was finally adopted in 2009 I wrote to ESPO to ask if they were going to modify the framework to take account of it –assuming they would as eager as I was to promote best practice. They replied,

“We shall certainly review the framework (involving suppliers in the process, of course) to ensure that it is brought fully up to date (and remains so) both in this respect and also as regards the current offering from the listed suppliers and the accuracy of the information published in our user guide.

An updated user guide will in due course be circulated to our ‘known contacts’ as well as via relevant channels like CILIP.”

Clearly I’m not a “known contact” (maybe an unknown one?) as I have never seen an updated guide. Neither I believe has CILIP – but then they only promised to circulate it to organisations “like” CILIP. Perhaps there are others…

“If stock is circulated between libraries. The proposed solution must be capable of handling the stock at all branches and locations.”

This is a good question (if a bit vague) but how did ESPO evaluate the replies I wonder? There are so many ways one might answer “yes” that a fairly rigorous examination of replies would seem to be essential. Especially if one considers the growing pressure for libraries to share resources within consortia for example. Is that eventuality meant to be covered by this question? Because it isn’t. I wonder how many people have signed cheques believing otherwise?

“Investment needs to be future proofed and details must be provided of standards and interoperability between ‘tags’, security devices, readers and the LMS.”

Which sounds reassuring and allows ESPO to put a tick in the “anything else that we haven’t covered” box. But there were no standards governing interoperability in 2007 (in the UK at least) so no-one should have been able to answer “yes” to that question. Did ESPO know this?

I’m not singling out ESPO – or indeed framework agreements. I understand perfectly why framework agreements are so attractive to local authorities. It makes the process simpler – if slightly more expensive – and it’s often the only way a local authority can try and access some kind of expert opinion. That’s the value that ESPO – and now the PRO-5 group – add.

But surely there has to be some kind of quality control here? Who determines if ESPO are asking the right questions? Or receiving accurate answers?

Yes of course I have to declare an interest here. But I think libraries have an obligation to us as taxpayers to make sure they are investing wisely and, yes, I think they should seek independent guidance before buying from someone who is simply trying to sell them a solution.

And that includes ESPO.

Service, what service?

admin — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:54:43 +0000

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.

I had been asking about response times for self-service and was surprised to hear from users of a particular LMS (ILS) that they were experiencing similar problems – with the same LMS supplier.

I posted on Twitter something to the effect that – if I had spent so much money on a solution I’d expect it to work! This clearly struck a chord with many fellow tweeters who assumed I was talking about RFID. I could have been, but this time I wasn’t.

Not that RFID doesn’t have its problems. There are many stories out there on the net already – about inadequacies in CD and DVD management, security gates that don’t detect in all planes, to say nothing of the many stock checking devices languishing in cupboards. A bigger problem still was the early assertion that “any tag can be read” – which although factually true concealed a much bigger problem the consequences of which are slowly coming to light. RFID was definitely “oversold” to early adopters.

But that’s the lot of the pioneer and it would be churlish to expect everything to run on rails from the start when deploying new technologies. Everyone has to learn – even the suppliers.

In this case however it was not a problem deriving from over-enthusiastic expectations of RFID suppliers and their clients but the more mundane fact that one of the leading suppliers to the UK public library market appears to have a problem with the design of their LMS interface with SIP.

Now SIP is not an exclusively RFID component. It is used by it, true, but it’s been around for much longer – so you might expect it to be working pretty much everywhere. So finding a global supplier that has a problem is a bit of a surprise. It has been suggested that UK libraries are the largest it has encountered so far and that it’s all a matter of scale.

I’m not going into the technical issue here, the point I want to pursue is the reluctance of librarians to complain when things don’t work. Actually it’s worse than not complaining – it’s also failing to mention these problems to their colleagues in other authorities.

What happens as a result goes like this, authority a asks authority b what they think of system x? Authority b recommends it (what else can they do? – to admit to problems would be to admit to having made a bad choice) so authority a buys x – and ends up with the same problem as authority b had all along.

Authority a never goes back to ask authority b about the problems they are having because they already know authority b had none. So the problem MUST lie elsewhere mustn’t it?

The LMS and RFID companies of course point the finger at each other – it’s an easy way for no-one to get the blame. So the library ends up with a problem that apparently has no resolution and gives up; and this is the point at which I start to bang my head against the wall.

I have so many examples of similar problems. Since I started writing this blog, and posting to the UK RFID list, I have regularly received emails – usually from those at the coalface, and from the US and Australia as well as the UK – telling me that their solutions have failed, often asking for my help.

I always try, and will keep trying, to give it – because I think libraries, especially public libraries, are facing the greatest challenge to their continued existence since they were created and can ill afford to spend limited resources on solutions that may fail.

But I could sure use some support from those actually spending the money. Believe it or not the suppliers worry much more about you than they do about me.

In this case I believe that if the group of libraries using the LMS jointly told the supplier that they will go on record about the problem it would be fixed in an instant. This is NOT a problem of interpretation of a standard, there are no nuances to this argument, it is a simple matter of customer service – or rather the lack of it.

If you’re not sure where the problem lies get all the parties together and have a discussion. You’re the customer you have the right to expect answers, if you don’t get them you can post the questions here.

Standards compliance – do we want it?

admin — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:40:57 +0000

At the present moment there is no UK statutory body authorised to test technical compliance with ISO Library Data Model standard (ISO 28560). There is, as Paul Chartier has mentioned previously, software in existence which can verify that tags are being correctly encoded but so far as I am aware none of the RFID Alliance are using it. There is no reason why they should of course – it costs money – but one would hope that no-one would risk installing a fairly complex model (with over 1 billion possible combinations I’m told by Alan Butters) without testing.

When the question of compliance/verification was raised in the RFID committee back at the beginning of the year I recall that it was felt that the best way forward would be for the industry to regulate itself. In other words suppliers would send each other encoded tags for verification. It was even suggested that this process could be anonymised to avoid any commercial advantage being lost or won by the companies themselves.

Since then there has been a great deal of affirmation of the standard and the accompanying data model by just about everyone in the UK RFID market but I’m not sure that means it’s actually being used – or that suppliers are in fact testing their efforts with each other and the last time I was involved in supplier selection I had to explain to two of the bidders what ISO 28560 is, AND what the UK data model is, despite their having insisted that they supported both in their bid submissions.

Today I was asked a member of the RFID Alliance how a library might go about obtaining their ISIL designation. That at least shows someone knows they need it. The ISIL element of the data model gives the identity of the owning library – vital if ILL is ever going to work with RFID (other than in closed consortia all using the same solution) – and is mandatory in the UKDM. So if you haven’t been asked for yours, you probably don’t have ISO 28560-2.

It is of course for individual libraries to decide whether they want to use a common standard or accept whatever their supplier offers instead – just as it is for suppliers to decide whether to support one. But in case anyone has forgotten WHY we have fought so hard to develop a common standard let me quote from the RFID Alliance’s own statement made in October 2009:

“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 emphasis is mine)

The Alliance members are 2CQR,3M, Axiell, Bibliotheca, D Tech International, Intellident and Plescon.

ISIL registration may be carried out via the ISIL agency at the British Library – http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/isilagency.html or you can use your library’s OCLC symbol prefixed by O-

OCLC symbols can be found at http://www.oclc.org/contacts/libraries/

Just in case you need them.

Best wishes

Mick

Normal service is being resumed…slowly

admin — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:10:27 +0000

Readers may have noticed that very little has been added to the blog recently! May and June proved an extraordinarily busy time for me and I’m afraid it has been the blog that has been neglected as a result.

So this is a quick catch up on some of the issues, events and activities that have been occupying me since the last post.

First and most important was marrying Anne of course! On a fantastically warm and sunny 5th of June we were married in a very simple ceremony on the shores of Loch Fyne, Argyll, Scotland with the honeymoon at the CILIPS annual conference in Glasgow. (More details of that – and pictures on the Credo blog.)

Other than that, and in no particular order, I’ve been working on RFID projects for Dublin City Libraries and the Skolkovo School of Management in Moscow; developing the agenda for the November Library RFID conference; writing the MLA Guide to Getting the Most out of RFID and working with UK RFID and library suppliers on interoperability issues on behalf of BIC.

CILIP Enterprises and I have been working hard to develop an agenda for the conference that will hopefully be both timely and relevant for a library market under siege. Paradoxically the interest in RFID has never been greater as more and more libraries look to invest in the technology to deliver better services more efficiently. As the UK joins much of Europe in agreeing a common standard the pace of innovation by RFID suppliers seems to have shifted into a higher gear and some Library Management Systems’ suppliers are finally engaged in the process of building more tightly integrated solutions. I’ve been discussing the likely impact of these changes with Marshall Breeding and am hopeful that we can find a sponsor prepared to help us bring him to London to offer us his view of how the systems market might respond to the challenge.

The Interoperability Group is beginning to take its first hesitant steps toward developing new protocols that will provide a firmer foundation for future integration. A meeting scheduled for June 24th will hopefully agree on the deliverables for the project’s first milestone date of November 9th 2010.

The US RFID list hosted a very lively – if somewhat technical – debate on UHF vs HF frequencies for library use which somehow developed into a wider debate about which of the two ISO 28560 versions they are likely to choose. (You can join that list here).

Over the next few weeks I hope to have time to work on some other projects and to bring the blog up-to-date – assuming England don’t reach the World Cup final.

Library RFID – 3 key areas to think about.

admin — Mon, 31 May 2010 07:30:24 +0000

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.

First – as Alan and Paul point out – is the technology, and of course the standards used. Both are vital components in building any RFID solution. So understanding the limitations of different products is an important consideration for the buyer.

Second there’s the impact that RFID will have on your service – and your staff. Planned and otherwise. This has become the domain of the change management consultant. Until relatively recently this role was almost entirely about introducing self-service but with so much innovation now underway – and as new standards are rolled out – successfully managing this task now requires a far greater understanding than previously of how RFID solutions actually interoperate with other systems.

Which brings us to the rather grey area of interoperability.

This, for me, is both the most interesting and difficult of the three. Possibly it should be further divided into two elements – the means of communication, and the data being communicated.

Until recently, the industry has used SIP – almost to the exclusion of anything else – to drive communications between an ILS/LMS and third party applications – as it has since well before RFID systems appeared.

Two things are changing this state of affairs. First, there seems to be a growing impatience with both SIP’s lack of functionality and NCIP’s failure to establish itself as its successor. This is the territory that is currently being explored by the UK RFID Interoperability Group and it’s already clear that this is by no means going to be a straightforward process. Some ILS/LMS vendors have already declared their preference for using proprietary APIs to deliver functionality to their clients, more will certainly follow.

The second change – only just emerging – is driven by the market’s realisation that tags are not simply a replacement for “dumb” barcode labels but have onboard intelligence that can be used to build solutions in ways not previously possible. How (and if) ILS/LMS vendors start to use RFID tags to deliver database-independent functionality is going to be one of the most interesting areas of library systems development over the next couple of years. The RFID companies are already in the race to do just that – although some of them haven’t realised it yet.

So maybe when reading this blog – or any other library RFID related piece – it’s worth remembering that “RFID” in a library context is not one thing – it is in fact, “all of the above”.

HF or UHF? – The Expert’s View

admin — Sun, 30 May 2010 17:35:38 +0000

The following was recently posted by Alan Butters and Paul Chartier in reply to a question asked on the US RFID List about using UHF or HF tags in the library. The CityU referred to in the text is in Hong Kong. I thought it might interest regular readers of this blog who may not subscribe to the US list so I have taken the liberty of posting it in full.

“As co-Project Editors of ISO 28560-2, we thought it useful to provide some input to the list.

Let’s start with the installed base of RFID systems. At a conference a few months ago, one of the major vendors of chips (they produce HF and UHF) estimated that there were 2500 libraries that had implemented RFID systems using high frequency technology. The count for UHF was less than 1% of this number. Our guess is that the 2500 might be a slightly low estimate.

When the work started on ISO 28560, we had to consider the installed base and the infrastructure and associated investment that had already been made. Simply disenfranchising all the libraries that had adopted national models or proprietary solutions would have been unthinkable – the aim was to increase interoperability between existing systems.

As those on this list probably know. ISO 28560 is a three-part standard as follows:

Part 1 defines the data element – almost certainly more than necessary for a single library, but trying to cover all aspects of circulation, collection management and the acquisition of library material.
Part 2 defines a flexible encoding system based on ISO/IEC 15962, which is increasingly being used in a number of applications and is independent of frequency and air interface protocol.
Part 3 is a fixed structure data model, effectively standardising the Danish national model.

These three standards together will allow libraries to move away from proprietary data models or systems providing an increased degree of interoperability. Furthermore, it may be possible to intermix old and new tag formats in the same library system.

Both Part 2 and Part 3 specify the use of ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 tags (also known as ISO/IEC 15693 when used as a smart card). This is a mature technology that is tried and tested, but is probably no longer the best RFID technology (other than its extensive installed base) with a wide choice of vendors for chips, tags and reading devices.

However, it does still have some strong features that are not necessarily supported by other tags and one particular feature is the capability of selective memory locking.

Now, let’s consider the position of UHF which has failed to make extensive market penetration in any library sector as was expected by some at the time that we started work on ISO 28560. UHF technology could not have been used universally a few years ago, because it was only recently approved by radio regulators in different regions of the world. There are still significant differences in performance capabilities based on regional and national radio regulations.

Although there are other UHF technologies, I am assuming that the discussions are about ISO/IEC 18000-6C tags (also known as EPCglobal Class 1 Gen 2). If we consider some of the features not mentioned in Lori’s e-mail, we might identify some of the challenges that libraries will face in selecting this technology:

Some tags only support a 96-bit identifier with no additional user memory, so there is no step forward from this tag being an electronic bar code.
Even those tags that have additional memory currently do not support selective locking.
Not all the tags support a unique serial number of the chip itself.

There is a gradual move away from some of these constraints, but libraries and specialist vendors need to be aware that these constraints will be around in some products for years to come. So selecting the tag without an understanding of its capabilities could cause problems for libraries.

Because Paul is heavily involved in ISO standardisation of the technology, the committee developing ISO 28560 has cognisance of the fact that there is the possibility of a new 18000-3 Mode 3 high frequency tag which has some of the features of the 18000-6C tag.

This has just been approved for publication and the library community needs to wait for products and a proper evaluation. So, even if we acknowledge that HF might not be the ideal platform for library RFID systems, UHF might not turn out to be the ideal replacement anyway – there may be other options to consider.

Now to some comments based on the heading of the CityU report.

Performance will be better for UHF based on the fact that this is a new technology. But 18000-3 Mode 3 will have bit transfer rates across the air interface that are up to four times (even eight times, if an optional feature is supported by the tag) than that of the present 18000-3 Mode 1 tags.
An extensive read range is not always a plus feature. When UHF was introduced in the logistics field, cross talking between interrogators at different dock doors in warehouses caused significant operational problems until fixed. The same also applied for airline baggage handling, where the read range enabled tags on other luggage on other conveyors to be read. Certainly, in different parts of the world, there are privacy concerns about the read range where the RFID tag might be used for tracking an individual. These concerns are such that legislation has already been passed – expect more in Europe.

The discussion on security gates is interesting, because the more extensive read range of UHF may have a positive impact, but in reality the extended read range may create a significant no-go zone for library users which could impact heavily on space utilisation. It is also necessary to consider UHF in the context of the three security systems discussed in ISO 28560, which are:

The main solution is to toggle between two different values of the tag’s AFI. This is possible with an 18000-3 Mode 1 tag while still permitting selective locking of the primary item identifier – a situation desired by many libraries. This strategy is not possible with an 18000-6 Type C tag, nor an 18000-3 Mode 3 tag. This is because the AFI is an integral part of what is known as Memory Bank 01 and this has to be locked or unlocked in its entirety.
Some of the vendors have developed proprietary EAS solutions for the 18000-3 Mode 1 tag. This second solution is not available in 18000-6C and it is not clear yet what will happen with 18000-3 Mode 3 tags.
The final security measure is to use a unique chip ID, which is an essential component of an 18000-3 Mode 1 tag that is at the core of the “hand-shaking” process with the communications protocol. This unique chip ID is optional in 18000-6C and 3 Mode 3, and is not used for communication purposes.

It was interesting to read that “CityU plans to adopt the data model of the US (ISO 15962) with slight modifications but is likely to follow ISO 28560, once adopted, which supports backwards compatibility and flexibility.” As co-Project Editor for ISO 28560-2 and Project Editor for ISO/IEC 15962, Paul is happy to assert that this solution is NOT A STANDARD, it is just another proprietary solution that will create problems of interoperability.

So, let’s take stock of what might happen in the future with ISO 28560, while we are still awaiting the final Yes/No ballot for the three standards. These standards will be implemented to different degrees by libraries with existing RFID systems, and certainly by libraries yet to embark on RFID. When the standards were being developed, the experts on the ISO committee were obviously aware of both 18000-6C (a reality) and the impending 18000-3 Mode 3 standards.

One likely outcome is for the next generation of library RFID standards to be based on 18000-3 Mode 3 tags, which will require either a new part to ISO 28560 or enhancements to existing parts. The tags will be different but, because of the significant installed base, there might be a degree of interoperability in readers that can be achieved with an engineering upgrade.

Because of the laws of physics, adopting UHF will certainly require different equipment, but it might still be possible for a future part of ISO 28560 to support UHF technology. However, before this can be done, the library community needs to be clear not just on aspects of the technology, but also on potential business and competitive issues that might exist with UHF technology. To support a business case, not only does the solution need to be based on suitable technology but the supplier community must build systems that take advantage of the strengths of the technology platform in such a way as to provide a compelling case for its purchase. Particularly is this so in the context of a market heavily dominated by HF solutions which themselves continue to evolve.

As soon as libraries embark on adopting standards, the standards makers have to take into account infrastructure issues and the installed base. A balance needs to be struck between the benefits of interoperability with existing technology versus switching to new technology. This is why most railway track gauges around the world have not changed for a hundred years, because the cost of infrastructure changing is too high compared to the benefits. The GS1 bar code (previously known as EAN and UPC) that we see on most retail products including books, is based on a technology developed in 1973.

37 years later, the same technology is being used even though there are significantly “better” bar code symbologies available. So while GS1 has added a number of new bar code symbologies, the old symbol might still make its 50th birthday!

Also, even if one is of the view that UHF is the “right” technology for libraries, the corollary that HF is the “wrong” technology does not necessarily follow. This is an important point. To miss this point is to suggest that project success and ROI in libraries cannot be achieved with HF platforms. There are simply too many successful library RFID projects around the world for this to be the case. This is not to say that library RFID systems couldn’t be better – of course they could and my own investigations suggest that implementing a UHF based platform could contribute some useful improvements. But are all library RFID systems based on HF really so bad that we should just push back and refuse to embrace the technology until something new comes along? Libraries will make their own call but I think not.

So, whatever we do in the future with the new generation HF or the existing UHF technology, recognition of the millions of Dollars (or Euros) of investment already made by libraries in RFID technology must be made. The door continues to stay open, but the work of the ISO committee must proceed with full acknowledgement of the extensive investments made by libraries over the past 12 or so years.”