Open Source Library Automation

1. JISC and SCONUL Library Management Systems Study Consultation Event June 27, 2008 Open Source Library Automation US Context and Opportunities for Engagement by UK Higher Education Marshall BreedingDirector for Innovative Technologies and Research Vanderbilt University http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding http://www.librarytechnology.org/

2. Focus • JISC and SCONUL have arranged a follow up 'workshop' day in London on Friday 27th June. Would you be able to able to make a virtual contribution with a short presentation on the Open Source LMS context in the US. The particular issue we'd like to address is how the domain (and 'pan HE organisations like JISC and SCONUL) might best engage in the development and future direction of  Open Source LMS.

3. Report findings 1.1.4 • …Systems Approaches – Key technological responses include development of open interfaces within a Service Oriented Architecture and developing Web 2.0 models. However, the implementation of an open source LMS is not yet regarded as beneficial. Whilst there is widespread use of Information Environment services from JISC Data Centre’s such as EDINA and MIMAS, further development of open interfaces is required.

4. Findings 1.7.2 • The procurement and implementation of an Open Source LMS is not workable for most institutions in the current climate, largely because of the staff capacity and support overheads, but also because the mission criticality of library systems requires users and procurers to have confidence in a robust system. However, Open Source developments are a valuable catalyst for change in terms of exploring possibilities and pushing boundaries for the community.

5. 2.3.2 Key trends influencing vendors • Open Source – ranging from a means of adding value around a vendor LMS to the basis for complete and competing LMS solutions; however, current US experience indicates that Open Source does not mean a cheaper LMS, nor a more interoperable one. It is therefore not surprising that no survey respondents considered an Open Source LMS a likely possibility, whilst nearly 20% had no interest at all in Open Source.

6. Open Source LMS movement in North America

7. Early LMS development • A heritage of local library development of LMS software • Several LMS created in Universities and other library settings • NOTIS (Northwestern University) – VTLS (Virginia Tech) – PALS (Minnesota consortium) – LIAS (Penn State) – GLADIS (UC Berkeley) – LIS (Georgetown) • Precursor to open source • Developed by libraries or university IT, shared with peer institutions • Many systems later commercialized

8. Commercial LMS Phase • 1980’s through ~2006 • Almost complete dominance by commercial vendors offering traditionally licensed library management systems • Specialized vendors • Business model based on up-front software license fees, annual payments (~15%) for upgrades and support, optional paid services

9. Current Open Source Movement • Primarily in the public library space • Early interest by Academic libraries • Development efforts underway to extend open source LMS products for use by academic libraries

10. Existing Open Source ILS products • Koha (Mostly public, some academic) • Evergreen (Mostly public, 1 academic) • OPALS (K-12 school) • NewGenLib (India / developing world)

11. Companies focused on support of Open Source library software • LibLime • Support services for Koha • Emerged from Nelsonville Public Library • Equinox Software • Support services for Evergreen • Emerged from Georgia Public Library Service • Care Affiliates • MasterKey federated search • Open Translators • Index Data • Software development and consulting services • YAZ Z39.50 toolkit – Metaproxy – Pazpar2 -- Zebra

12. Academic library adoption of Open Source ILS • WALDO consortium CIL “Open source ILS gains ground” (Feb 2008) http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=13147 • University of Prince Edward Island • Robertson Library – four week migration from Unicorn to Evergreen (sans serials and acquisitions). • Conifer project • Laurentian University, McMaster University, and the University of Windsor. • Proposed implementation in 2009

13. US Open Source Perspective • Despite the recent flurry of activity in the public library arena, few academic libraries have made commitments to open source LMS • No open source ILS among ARLs • http://www.librarytechnology.org/arl.pl • Locally developed systems transitioning to commercial systems: • UC Berkeley: GLADIS > Millennium • Univ of Texas > Local system > Millennium • UCLA: Local > Voyager • More fervor for open source LMS in academic libraries Canada than US • Conifer consortium – UPEI Robertson Library

14. UK / US Differences • More libraries in the US able to make system decisions outside of regulated procurement processes • Many outspoken advocates for open source software in US library profession • Open source software has become the politically correct position • Higher level of frustration with the incumbent vendor situation • More libraries disrupted by product decisions made in the environment of mergers & acquisitions and private equity buy-outs.

15. Duke-led initiative for open library environment • “Open Library Environment” (OLE) • Proposed funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation • Convene the academic library community in the design of an Open Library Management System built on Service Oriented Architecture model • 1-year to develop requirements and conceptual model for a next-generation • Possible follow-on project to build specified system • Lynne O’Brien, Principal Investigator

16. Core Duke University Univ of Pennsylvania Univ of Kansas Lehigh Univ National Library of Australia Library and Archives Canada Marshall Breeding Advisory Univ of Chicago ORBIS Cascade Alliance Whittier College Univ of Florida Rutgers Univ Univ of Maryland Duke OLE participants

17. Other aspects of Openness • Open Data • Development of industry-standard APIs • Open content knowledgebases

18. DLF ILS Discovery Interface • Committee charged by the Digital Library Federation to create open interfaces between the LMS and the emerging genre of discovery-layer interfaces (eg: Primo, Encore, AquaBrowser, VUFind, eXtensible Catalog, ect.) • “Berkeley accord” following 7 Mar 2008 meeting involving committee and potential implementers. • Bindings include OAI-PMH, OpenURL, etc to accomplish harvesting and back-linking

19. Opportunities for engagement • UK open source initiatives? • Not recommended in LMS report • UK can provide input and influence to the open source developments in North America while it evaluates its applicability. • Help the open source LMS movement mature to a more responsible level. • Focus on other aspects of “openness”

20. Involvement with Commercial open source companies? • LMS Report advises against changing systems now • Current open source LMS not functionally transformative • Model for enhancement involve “sponsorship” of development tasks

21. UK representation in OLE? • We want to find a way for any interested party to participate in some capacity • Three meetings will be held as Web casts • An open listserv will be established once the project is officially underway • Possible regional meetings hosted at core libraries which will be open for individuals to attend at their own expense • Some seats held open in the official project workshops. Possible invitations to others beyond the original participants that want to contribute in a significant way

22. Service-oriented architecture • Engage in efforts to capture library workflows in terms of SOA concepts • Prompt vendors to deepen adoption of SOA • Focus any efforts involving open source development on SOA components.

23. Questions and Comments Marshall Breeding Vanderbilt University Marshall.breeding@vanderbilt.edu http://www.librarytechnology.org