Transcript ppt - Library Technology Guides

OPEN SOFTWARE FOR
LIBRARIES:
Current Trends and Issues
Marshall Breeding
Director for Innovative Technology and Research
Vanderbilt University Library
Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides
http://www.librarytechnology.org/
http://twitter.com/mbreeding
29 March, 2011
Modelos de negocio y de gestión de contenidos con software
libre
Abstract
Libraries have a natural affinity with open source
software, and many have implemented it for their
strategic automation infrastructure, including ILS and
discovery systems. In his analysis of the library
automation industry, Breeding tracks the pace of
adoption of open source library automation. Come hear
his perspectives on the current and emerging trends of
open source in the industry relative to proprietary
products and how it fares relative to broader trends such
as comprehensive resource management, cloud
computing, and new-generation discovery.
Context: Basic library automation
trends

Transition away from legacy Integrated Library System
model






Transition into new genre of Library Services Platforms
Large-scale consolidation of automation: regional,
state-wide, national
Converged workflows: Print, electronic, digital
Increased reliance on cloud technologies: multi-tenant
software-as-a-service
Enterprise-level infrastructure
Platform of open APIs for customized functionality and
interoperability
Adoption Patterns by Libraries
What are the trends in the adoption of Open
Source library management software by
libraries
Recent ILS Industry Contracts
Company
OCLC
Innovative Interfaces
Ex Libris
SirsiDynix
Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
The Library Corporation
Ex Libris
VTLS Inc.
Polaris Library Systems
Biblionix
ByWater Solutions
PTFS LibLime
PTFS LibLime
Equinox Software
Equinox Software
Product
WorldShare Management Services
Sierra
Alma
Symphony
Millennium
Library.Solution
Aleph
Virtua
Polaris ILS
Apollo
Koha
LibLime Academic Koha
LibLime Koha
Evergreen
Koha
2009
2010
45
30
47
18
33
55
7
8
126
39
43
39
22
23
87
44
18
44
15
-
2011
184
206
24
122
32
48
25
13
53
79
54
7
27
21
6
ILS Turnover Report
ILS Turnover Report -- Reverse
Perceptions of Open Source
Does open source result in higher or lower
satisfaction by libraries that have adopted it for
library management systems?
Perceptions Survey – Open Source
Interest
Perceptions Survey – Perceived
functionality
Perceptions Survey – ILS Satisfaction
Business Models
US: Commercial involvement dominates




Almost all installations of open source ILS products
in the United States involve contracts with
commercial companies
Mostly hosted by the commercial support company
A very small minority of independent installations
Consortial arrangement:
 Consortial
office provides support to libraries
 Commercial firm provides support to consortial office
International scenarios







Internationally support is often provided though government
agencies or non-governmental organizations
Need for translations and to implement local functionality
CONABIP: Developing Koha for Bibliotecas Populares en
Argentina
National Library of Philippines: provides Koha for all public
libraries
EIFL: Pilot implementations of Koha and Evergreen in
developing nations
Spain : Koha – Kobli for governmental libraries
Bireme / UNESCO: development of ABCD as an open
source LMS based on CDS/ISIS technologies
The business of open source


Many Commercial companies with interest in open
source library automation products
Revenue sources
 Conversion
of data from incumbent system
 Installation / configuration
 Training
 Support / Help desk
 Hosting
 Sponsored Development
Proprietary software business model




Software License Fee
Conversion, Installation, training
Annual maintenance for upgrades, service, support
(~15 percent)
Hosting (optional)
Business realities








Same cost exist elements for any major software
development projects
Software engineers to develop business application
Quality assurance
Administration / Govenance
Data Migration
Implementation
Hosting infrastructure
Service and support
Revenue sources



Open source software based entirely on services or
contributed effort
Proprietary software revenues derived from
Licensing plus modest (15%) maintenance and
service fees
Both Open source and Proprietary software moving
toward subscriptions-based SaaS
Open Source Governance

Some entity needs to manage the overall project –
Otherwise Chaos ensues








Ownership of intellectual property (trademarks, copyrights,
patents)
Provide legal and administrative support
Strategic leadership: trajectory of development
Represent key stakeholders: developers, institutional
implementers, end-users
Provide tools for development, codebase management,
distribution
Manage personnel resources
Enforce and manage quality control
Examples: Apache Software Foundation, Kuali Foundation,
Software as a service (multi-tenant)


Open source or proprietary
All-inclusive subscription fee
 Hosting
 Maintenance
(always up-to-date)
 Support
 Annual
fee scaled to the size and complexity of library
Development Resources
Company
Ex Libris
Follett Software Company
Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
SirsiDynix Corporation
Serials Solutions
Axiell
The Library Corporation
Polaris Library Systems
VTLS Inc.
Dev
Sup
Sales
Admin
Other
Total
170
87
83
84
80
57
39
27
24
231
143
158
166
50
66
91
42
48
54
86
43
51
46
34
28
15
12
44
49
24
23
4
35
13
2
8
13
0
3
56
57
34
28
18
512
365
311
380
237
226
199
86
110
ByWater Solutions
Catalyst IT
3
3
12
3
3
1
13
BibLibre
4
3
Koha
Koha Total (estimated)
15
Models of Openness
Programming levels


Systems software development: professional
software engineer using languages such as C++,
Microsoft .Net, Java, JEEE
Systems integration and extension: mid-level
programmers with knowledge of scripting
languages such as PHP, Ruby, Perl, Python
 Works
with application programming interfaces (APIs)
to create new functionality or manipulate date from an
existing business system
Closed Systems
End User
Interfaces:
Programmer
access:
Functional
modules:
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
Cataloging Circulation
Acquisitions
No
programmable
Access to the
system.
Captive to the
user
Interfaces
supplied by the
developer
Standard RDBM Systems
End User
Interfaces:
Programmer
access:
Functional
modules:
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
Cataloging Circulation
Acquisitions
Database
administrators can
access data stores
involved with the
system:
Read-only?
Read/write?
Developer shares
database schema
Open Source Model
Programmer
access:
End User
Interfaces:
Functional
modules:
Cataloging Circulation
Acquisitions
Software
Engineer
All aspects of the
system available
to inspection and
modification.
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
Database Administrator
or
SQL Programmer
Open API Model
Programmer
access:
End User
Interfaces:
Core application
closed.
Functional
modules:
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
Cataloging Circulation
Acquisitions
Third party
developers code
against the
published APIs or
RDBMS tables.
Published APIs
Programmer /
Integrator
Open Source / Open API Model
Programmer
access:
End User
Interfaces:
Functional
modules:
Cataloging Circulation
Acquisitions
Software
Engineer
Published APIs
Data Stores:
Integrator
Staff Interfaces:
DBA
Core application
open.
Third party
developers code
against the
published APIs or
RDBMS tables.
Application API
exposed to External Applications
Public
Interface
Staff
Interface
Reports
Module
External
applications
Delivered Interfaces
use proprietary
programming
Core Functionality / Business Logic
Core Software
RDMS API
Data stores
Application
Programming
Interfaces
Legacy ILS Model + protocol
Interlibrary
Loan
System
Public Interfaces:
Staff Interfaces:
Protocols: SIP2 NCIP Z39.50 OAI-PMH
Application Programming Interfaces
Circulation Cataloging
Acquisitions
Serials
Online
Catalog
Self-Check
BIB
Holding
/ Items
Circ
Transact
User
Vendor
$$$
Funds
Policies
Legacy ILS Model / External API
External
Systems &
Services
Public Interfaces:
Staff Interfaces:
Application Programming Interfaces / Web Services
Circulation Cataloging
Acquisitions
Serials
Online
Catalog
Flexible
Interoperability
Protocols: SIP2 NCIP Z39.50 OAI-PMH
BIB
Holding
/ Items
Circ
Transact
User
Vendor
$$$
Funds
Policies
New Library Management Model
Unified Presentation Layer
Search:
Library Services
Platform
Digital
Coll
Search
Engine
API Layer
`
Consolidated index
Self-Check /
Automated
Return
ProQuest
EBSCO
…
JSTOR
Stock
Management
Other
Resources
Enterprise
Resource
Planning
Learning
Management
Smart Cad /
Payment
systems
Authentication
Service
Is Open Source ILS transformative
Open source version of legacy models?
or
New opportunities to support modern
libraries?
Opening up Library Systems through Web
Services and SOA: Hype or Reality?
This report aims to assess the
current slate of major library
automation systems in regard to
their ability to provide openness
through APIs, Web services, and
the adoption of SOA.
Library Technology Reports Nov/Dec Issue 2009 by Marshall Breeding
Opening up Library Systems through Web
Services and SOA: Hype or Reality?
“We also note that the two open
source systems lag behind
proprietary systems in terms of
customer-facing APIs that result
in tangible activities which
extend functionality or enable
interoperability.”
Library Technology Reports Nov/Dec Issue 2009 by Marshall Breeding
Opening up Library Systems through Web
Services and SOA: Hype or Reality?
“The APIs available to library
programmers continue to be quirky
and less than comprehensive, even
from the vendors with the strongest
offerings in this area.”
Library Technology Reports Nov/Dec Issue 2009 by Marshall Breeding
Open Systems






Achieving openness has risen as the key driver behind
library technology strategies
Libraries need to do more with their data
Ability to improve customer experience and operational
efficiencies
Demand for Interoperability
Open source – full access to internal program of the
application
Open API’s – expose programmatic interfaces to data
and functionality
Library Services Platform




Possible new term for the successor to the ILS
ILS now viewed as print-centric
Next Generation systems must serve as platforms to
connect external systems as well as to deliver
internal functionality
Delivered Functionality + library created extensions
+ interoperability
Current Open Source ILS Products
Competing Models of Library
Automation

Traditional Proprietary Commercial ILS (print
centric)
 Millennium,

Traditional Open Source ILS (print centric)
 Evergreen,

Koha
Hybrid Approach
 Sierra

Symphony, Polaris
Services Platform (Innovative Interfaces)
Library Services Platforms
 Ex
Libris Alma, Serials Solutions Alma, Kuali OLE, OCLC
WorldShare Management Services
Koha




Originally developed in 1999 for small group of
libraries in New Zealand, Horowhenua Library Trust
by Katipo Communications, production use by Jan
2000
Gained widespread use in the United States around
2004-05 and has seen steady growth in use
Wide international adoption
Used in many thousands of libraries. 1,573
represented in lib-web-cats, with many large groups
not yet registered.
Companies involved with Koha











ByWater Solutions. Provides hosting and support services for libraries in the United States
PTFS – LibLime. Provides development, hosting, and support for “LibLime Academic Koha” and
“LibLime Koha”
PTFS Europe. Service, hosting and support for Koha in the United Kingdom and parts of
Europe.
BibLibre. Provides development, hosting and support primarily to libraries in France
Catalist IT: provides development, hosting and support for libraries in Australia an New
Zealand
Libéo: Service and suppor for Koha to libraries in Canada
Equinox Software, Inc. Provides development, support, and hosting for Koha to libraries in the
United States. Most of the company’s business is based on Evergreen.
Orex. Service and support for Koha in Spain
Organizadatos: Service and support for Koha in Columbia and other parts of Latin America
Librotech: Based in Norway to promote and provide service and support for Koha in
Scandinavia.
Katipo Communications. Service and support for Koha in New Zealand. Previously sold its
interests in Koha to LibLime, but has since reinstated its involvement.
National Projects to deploy Koha


Philippines: A systematic effort to install Koha in the
public libraries sponsored by the state libraries
Spain: Koha-Kobli
 (Koha
Biblioteca)
 http://kobli.bage.es/

Argentina. CONABIP (Comisión Nacional de
Bibliotecas Populares)
 Customized
version of Koha: DigiBepe
 http://www.conabip.gob.ar/faq/digibepe
Koha Worldwide
Evergreen




Originally developed by the Georgia Public Library
System for the PINES consortium of public libraries in
Georgia
PINES includes most of the small and mid-sized public
libraries in Georgia, but not the largest urban areas
(Atlanta, Cobb County, etc)
Equinox Software, Inc. launched as a separate company
in Feb 2007, including most of the team that originally
created Evergreen within GPLS.
Evergreen now used in over 1,000 libraries, primarily in
the United States and Canada. Some recent
international deployments
Evergreen Worldwide
Kuali OLE





Mellon funded project to create new enterprise
level automation platform for research libraries
1-year planning project led by Duke University
Manage resources of all formats
More than an ILS / Less than an ILS
Community Source / Open Source
OLE Project: Phase I





Planning and Design Phase
Develop Vision + Blueprint
Work with consultants with expertise in SOA and
BPM
Instill community ownership of OLE
Recruit partners for Phase II
Kuali OLE Project: Phase II






2-year build project led by Indiana University
$2.38 million from Mellon matched by capital and
in-kind contributions by development partners
Community source reference implementation
Create software based on OLE blueprint from
current project
Early software in 18-24 months
High level of investment and commitment to
implementation
Comparative Issues:

Koha: (ILS)




Evergreen (ILS)




Used in a wide range of library sizes and types
Very broad international deployment with translations into many
languages
Many support companies in various countries and regions
Created initially for library consortia, and has since followed that
pattern. Very few instances for single libraries
Concentrated in US, Canada, initial deployments in Europe
Perceived as more complex to implement than Koha
Kuali OLE: (LSP)


Enterprise-level software for academic and research libraries
No libraries yet in production
Questions and discussion