Transcript Open Source Software for Libraries

Open Source Library
Automation
The Current State of the Art
Marshall Breeding
Director for Innovative Technologies and Research
Vanderbilt University
http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding
http://www.librarytechnology.org/
Program Description
“Open Source Library Automation”
will examine the recent movement
toward the adoption of open source
integrated library systems, considering
the relative advantages,
disadvantages, risks, costs, and the
functionality of the products available.
Recent Upheavals
 Industry Consolidation continues
 Abrupt transitions for major library automation
products
 Increased industry control by external financial
investors
 Demise of the traditional OPAC
 Frustration with ILS products and vendors
 Open Source alternatives hit the mainstream
Breeding, Marshall: Perceptions 2007 an international survey of library automation.
http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2007.pl January 2008.
ILS Industry in Transition
 Consolidation through mergers and acquisitions
have resulted in a fewer number of players; larger
companies
 Uncomfortable level of product narrowing
 Increased ownership by external interests
 Yet: Some companies and products continue on
solid ground
Breeding, Marshall “Automation system marketplace 2008: Opportunity Out of Turmoil”
Library Journal. April 1, 2008.
Results of industry turmoil
 Disruptions and business decisions to narrow
options have caused major shifts in the library
automation industry
 fueled the open source movement and created a
huge market for companies supporting open
source ILS
 Influx of business towards companies with reliable
track record
 Traditionally licensed and open source ILS
alternatives will coexist in the ILS arena
Open Source ILS enters the
mainstream
 Earlier era of pioneering efforts to ILS
shifting into one where open source
alternatives fall in the mainstream
 Off-the-shelf, commercially supported
product available
 Still a minority player, but gaining ground
– Next LJ Automation System Marketplace article
will update the score
 Are they next-generation systems or open
source version of legacy models?
Open Source Software
Broad Trends
Open Source Infrastructure
IT Infrastructure
 Linux
 Apache
– Lucene
– Solr
 MySql
 PostgreSQL
Web Server deployment
Source: Netcraft www.netcraft.com
Operating System Market Share
 IDC figures for OS on new server shipments
3Q 2007:
 Windows Server: 67.1%
 Linux:
22.8%
– Slight gain for Windows/loss for Linux over
previous quarter
Trends
 Open Source Software well established in
for general IT infrastructure
 Linux emerging as the dominant flavor of
Unix
 Commercial options continue to prosper
Open Source Library Software
(non-ILS)
General Infrastructure Components
 Index Data
– YAZ toolkit
 Z39.50
 SRU/W
– Zebra XML Search Engine
– Pazpar2 federated search engine
– MasterKey federated search hosted service
Digital Repository Applications
Fedora
 Open source digital repository engine
 Not an out-of-the-box solution
– Many organizations have developed their own
interfaces and applications built on top of
Fedora
 VTLS Vital product based on Fedora
 Supported by Fedora Commons
– http://www.fedora-commons.org/
Dspace
 Institutional Repository Application
 Originally developed by Hewlett Packard
and MIT
 http://www.dspace.org
 Widely deployed by Universities for
institutional repository projects
Keystone
 Developed by Index Data
 Open source digital repository application
– Digital content management
– Federated search
– OAI harvesting
– Link resolver services
Open source discovery
products
AKA: Next Generation Catalogs
VUFind – Villanova University
Based on Apache Solr search toolkit
http://www.vufind.org/
eXtensible Catalog
 University of Rochester – River Campus
Libraries
 Financial support from the Andrew W.
Mellon Foundation
 http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/
– Just received a second round of funding from
Mellon
 $283,000 (April 2006)
 $749,000 (October 2007)
– Wider institutional participation
A Mandate for Openness
Opportunities for Openness
 Open Source
– Alternative to traditionally licensed software
 Open Systems
– Software that doesn’t hold data hostage
More Open Systems
 Pressure for traditionally licensed products to become
more open
 APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) let libraries
access and manipulate their data outside of delivered
software
 A comprehensive set of APIs potentially give libraries more
flexibility and control in accessing data and services and in
extending functionality than having access to the source
code.
 Customer access to APIs does not involve as much risk to
breaking core system functions, avoids issues of version
management and code forking associated with open
source models.
More Open Systems
 Pressure for traditionally licensed products to become
more open
 APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) let libraries
access and manipulate their data outside of delivered
software
 A comprehensive set of APIs potentially give libraries more
flexibility and control in accessing data and services and in
extending functionality than having access to the source
code.
 Customer access to APIs does not involve as much risk to
breaking core system functions, avoids issues of version
management and code forking associated with open
source models.
Opportunity out of the Upheavals
 More options
– Commercial + Open Source
 More vendors
– New open source support companies provide new
competition
 More library involvement
– Libraries re-energized to make significant contributions
to the body of library automation software
 Traditionally licensed and open source automation
systems will co-exist. We have an interest in the
success of both alternatives.
Web 2.0 / Collaborative
Computing
 Currently implemented ad hoc
 Many libraries putting up blogs, wikis, and
fostering engagement in social networking sites
 Proliferation of silos with no integration or
interoperability with larger library Web presence
 Next Gen: Build social and collaborative features
into core automation components
Open Source in the ILS arena
Products and trends
Open Source ILS enters the
mainstream
 Earlier era of pioneering efforts to ILS
shifting into one where open source
alternatives fall in the mainstream
 Off-the-shelf, commercially supported
product available
 Still a minority player, but gaining ground
Tracking the Open Source
Movement
Through Marshall’s articles and
columns
March 2002: Open source ILS: still a
distant possibility
 “I do not, however, expect to see such victories of
Open Source software over commercial products
in the integrated library system arena. Both broad
historical and recent trends argue against a
movement toward libraries creating their own
library automation systems—either in an Open
Source or closed development process.”
 Early open source efforts included Avanti,
Pytheas, OpenBook, and Koha
 3 out of 4 now defunct
Source: Information Technologies and Libraries, Mar 2002
Oct 2002: An update on Open
Source ILS
 “the open source systems such as the three
mentioned above are but a small blip on the
radar. Compared to the thousands of
libraries that acquire automation systems
from commercial vendors each year, the
handful that use open source systems
cannot yet be noted as a trend. “
– Discussed Koha, LearningAccess ILS, Avanti
MicroLCS
Source: Information Today, Oct 2002
http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=9975
… then the world changed
Mar 2007: On update on Open
Source ILS
“As I look back at my 2002 column on open source ILS, I see that I
mentioned both Koha and the Learning-Access ILS. Over this 4-year
time period I have seen Koha usage increase from a single library
system to two or more library systems plus a few individual public
libraries and a large number of other small ones. The LearningAccess
ILS is used in 15 libraries. Evergreen currently represents the largest
group of libraries sharing a single open source ILS implementation.
Over the same time period, well over 40,000 libraries have purchased a
commercial ILS. So, relative to the entire library automation arena,
those using an open source ILS still represent a minuscule portion of
the whole.
That said, conditions are ripe for a more rapid adoption of open source
ILS than we have seen in the past. “
Source: Computers in Libraries, Mar 2007
http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=12445
Mar 2008: Making a business case
for Open Source ILS
We’re living in a phase of library automation characterized by
an increased interest in open source-not just in backend infrastructure components but also in the missioncritical business applications such as the integrated library
system. Open source library automation systems, including
Koha and Evergreen, have been propelled into the
limelight. Recent survey data fails to corroborate broad
interest that libraries are ready to adopt open source ILS.
The success of early adopters of open source ILS now
serve as a catalyst for others. Paths now exist with
more mature systems and professional support
options. As the open source movement matures, these
system will need to compete on their own merits and not
solely on a philosophical preference.
Source: Computers in Libraries, Mar 2008
http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=13134
Apr 2008: Automation System
Marketplace
“Last year marked the launch of the open source ILS
into the mainstream; it received major attention in
the press and at library conferences. From a
business perspective, open source ILS contracts
represented a very small portion of the library
automation economy. The success of early
adopters' implementations has already diminished
skepticism. Many indicators suggest that open
source ILS contracts will displace larger
percentages of traditional licensing models in each
subsequent year.
Source: “Automation System Marketplace: Opportunity out of Turmoil”
April 1, 2008
An industry in turmoil
 Disruptions and business decisions to
narrow options have fueled the open source
movement
 Benefit to libraries in having additional
options
 Traditionally licensed and open source ILS
alternatives will coexist in the ILS arena
Open Source vs Traditional licensing




Taking sides?
Both viable options
Avoid philosophical preference
Which best supports the missions of
libraries?
 Which approach helps libraries become
better libraries
Current Open Source ILS
Product Options
Koha: first Open Source ILS
 Koha + Index Data Zebra = Koha ZOOM
 Components:
– Perl
– Apache
– MySql
– Zebra: search engine option for larger
installations
Libraries committed to Koha
 300+ libraries
 Horowhenua Library Trust
 Nelsonville Public Library
– Athens County, OH
 Crawford County Federated Library System
– 10 Libraries in PA
 Howard County, MD
– Service area population: 266300
– 4.7 million circulation transactions in 2006
– 1 million volumes
 Central Kansas Library System
 Santa Cruz Public Library
– Central, 9 branches
– 2 million volumes
 Near East University Library
Koha
Evergreen
 Developed by the Georgia Public Library
Service
 Small development team
 June 2004 – development begins
 Sept 5, 2006 – live production
 Streamlined environment: single shared
implementation, all libraries follow the same
policies, one library card
Libraries using Evergreen
 Georgia PINES
– http://gapines.org
 Georgia PINES:
– 1 Installation
– 54 Public Library Systems
– 260+ library facilities
– Does not include municipal systems: Atlanta-Fulton County,
Cobb County
 Province of British Columbia in Canada –
SITKA
 Kent County, MD
 Evergreen Indiana
 Under consideration by academic libraries in
Canada
Evergreen
OPALS
 Open source Automated Library System
– http://www.mediaflex.net/showcase.jsp?record_id=52
 Developed and Supported by Media Flex
– Harry Chan
– Original developer of Mandarin
– Installation ($250) and Hosting services ($750)
 South Central Organization of (School) Libraries
 consortium of K-12 school libraries in NY
Libraries using OPALs
 Dutchess County BOCES School Library System Union Catalog
 Rockland County BOCES School Library System Union Catalog
– manage as many as half a million unique titles and close to a
million holdings.
 South Central Organization Of (School) Library Systems
– 1.7 million titles and more than 3 million holdings for 300 schools
 24 school libraries in Rockland County use OPALS open source
software to manage the daily operations of their libraries
 In New York State, 15 BOCES School Library Systems provide
interlibrary loan services and building level management services to
900 school libraries using OPALS open source software
Source: Harry Chan. MediaFlex
OPALS
NextGenLib





ILS designed for the developing world
Originally traditionally licensed, introduced 2003
Transition to Open Source in Jan 2008
122 Installations (India, Syria, Sudan, Cambodia)
Collaborative project:
– Kesavan Institute of Information and Knowledge Management
– Versus Solutions
– Versus IT Services Pvt. Ltd
 http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltgdisplaytext.pl?RC=13150
ILS Deployments
Unicorn
1704
Koha (Total)
500?
Horizon
1612
Koha (LibLime)
260+
Millennium
1289
Evergreen
Voyager
1183
OPALS
Aleph 500
1970
Library.Solution
700
88
58 / 170
Commercial Involvement
Companies formed to support
open source library products
The Open Source Business Front
 Index Data
– Founded 1994; No ILS; A variety of other open source products to
support libraries: search engines, federated search, Z39.50 toolkit,
etc
 LibLime
– Founded 2005. Provides development and support services for
Koha ILS. Acquired original developers of Koha in Feb 2007.
 Equinox.
X
– Founded Feb 2007; staff formerly associated with GPLS Pines
development team
 MediaFlex.
– Longstanding school library automation company. Latest
generation ILS developed in open source model
LibLime
 Small, but growing, private company formed in
early 2005
 Devoted to support of Koha and other open source
software
 Launched by individuals involved with the Koha
implementation at the Nelsonville Public Library
 Acquired the Koha activities of Katipo
Communications (Feb 2007)
 Total of 20 FTE – Hiring industry veterans exiting
from traditional ILS companies
Equinox Software
 Small company
 Devoted to facilitating libraries implement
Evergreen the open source ILS developed for
PINES
 Launched by individuals related to the
development and implementation of Evergreen at
the Georgia Public Library System
 Contracts to GPLS and other libraries for the
ongoing development and support of Evergreen
Care Affiliates
 Recently formed company to provide support for
Open Source library automation products.
 Carl Grant – Former COO of VTLS, President of
Ex Libris (USA), Innovative Interfaces, DRA, etc.
 No ILS product. Limited number of contracts.
 Primary initiative involved federated search
 Company assets sold to LibLime in July 2008.
Open Source Issues
 Explosive interest in Open Source driven by
disillusionment with current vendors
 Seen as a solution to:
– Allow libraries to have more flexible systems
– Lower costs
– Not be vulnerable to disruptions that come with
mergers and acquisitions
 Beginning to emerge as a mainstream
option
 TOC (Total Cost of Ownership) still roughly
Cost issues
 Costs shifted from traditional software licensing
models
– No initial purchase of license or annual license fees






Hardware costs (same as traditional)
Vendor support costs (optional)
Hosting services
Conversion services
Local technical support (may be higher)
Development costs – vague models for nextgeneration development
Risk Factors
 Open Source still a risky Alternative
– Dependency on community organizations and
commercial companies that provide development an
support services
 Commercial/Proprietary options also a risk
– Opinions vary, but:
“the traditional ILS market is no longer a haven for the risk
adverse.”
(Northern PINES talking points
http://pines.bclibrary.ca/resources/talking-points)
Open source ILS Benchmarks
 Most decisions to adopt Open Source ILS based
on philosophical reasons
 Open Source ILS will enter the main stream once
its products begin to win through objective
procurement processes
– Hold open source ILS to the same standards as the
commercial products
– Hold the open source ILS companies to the same
standards:
 Adequate customer support ratios, financial stability, service
level agreements, etc.
 Well-document total cost of ownership statements
that can be compared to other vendor price quotes
Measuring Interest in Open Source
ILS
Source: Perceptions 2007: an international survey of Library Automation
http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2007.pl
Open Source Market share
 Open Source ILS implementations still a small
percentage of the total picture
 Initial set of successful implementations will likely
serve as a catalyst to pave the way for others
 Successful implementations in wider range of
libraries:
– State-wide consortium (Evergreen)
– Multi-site public library systems (Koha)
– School district consortia (OPALS)
UNESCO CDS/ ISIS





Dominant automation platform for Latin America
Distributed without cost but not as open source
Software components do not form a true ILS
Difficulty with language scripts (no UNICODE)
Transition to open source model underway
– Preserve compatibility with ISIS database structure at
least for the short term
– Integrate multiple components into a true ILS
ABCD – ISIS based open source ILS
 Rio Declaration: Sept 2008 – Reinforced
dedication to ISIS family of software in
collaboration with organizations like BIREME
 CDS/ISIS database structure
 UNICODE support
 Java ISIS
 ISIS Network Based Platform (NBP)
– Python based architecture
 ABCD (Automatisación de Bibliotécas y Centros
de Documentación)
Open Source perspective
 Are open source ILS products taking library automation in
a new direction, or are they open source versions of what
we already have?
 Will current slate of companies be able to support
increasing numbers of libraries without the same difficulties
as the incumbent ILS vendors?
 The ILS landscape is forever changed by the open source
alternatives
 Open Source ILS catching up with the Legacy ILS. Both
moving headstrong into the past.
 Urgent need for a new generation of library automation
designed for current and future-looking library missions
and workflows.
Open Library Environment (OLE)
project
 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
– Research in Information Technology program
– Solicited proposal / Lead institution
 Duke University selected to lead project
 Core Participants: Kansas University, Lehigh University, National
Library of Australia, Library and Archives Canada, University of
Pennsylvania, Marshall Breeding
 Advisory Participants: University of Chicago, Wittier College, University
of Maryland, ORBIS Cascade Alliance, Rutgers University
 Status: Project underway: First in-person meeting, scope document
underway, SOA training, first public webcast. Participants actively
engaged in process.
http://oleproject.org
Combine and Consolidate?
 What is the ideal configuration to use an ILS?
– Single Library (including branches)
– Shared regional system
– State- Province-wide ILS?
 Trend toward increased numbers of facilities sharing an
ILS
– Several examples of multiple consortia combining to share one ILS
implementation
– Many initiatives toward statewide ILS implementations
– Internationally: some country-wide ILS implementations (e.g.
COBISS in Slovenia)
 The days of the one-library ILS are fading
Scalability?
 The viable size of an implementation not as
much an issue as in earlier phases of
computing
 Hardware scales almost infinitely
 Major ILS products scale almost infinitely
Opportunities for the
underserved
 Many libraries in the United States operate with no
automation system or use PC-based systems with no Web
access or resource sharing options
 Many libraries run outdated systems
 Current models put automation out of the reach of public
libraries with small local tax base
 Large-scale automation efforts can offer affordable (or free)
access to these libraries
 Compare: Number of un-automated public libraries in the
UK: 1
 Question: are shared / consolidated models applicable in
Argentina?
Questions and Discussion