OPEN SOURCE IN LIBRARIES: Current Trends and Issues Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technology and Research Vanderbilt University Library Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides March 22, 2011 Computers in Libraries 2011

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

Recent ILS Industry Contracts CompanyProduct OCLCWorldShare Management Services184 Innovative InterfacesSierra 206 Ex LibrisAlma824 SirsiDynixSymphony Innovative Interfaces, Inc.Millennium The Library CorporationLibrary.Solution Ex LibrisAleph VTLS Inc.Virtua Polaris Library SystemsPolaris ILS BiblionixApollo ByWater SolutionsKoha74454 PTFS LibLimeLibLime Academic Koha 7 PTFS LibLimeLibLime Koha 4427 Equinox SoftwareEvergreen Equinox SoftwareKoha 6

ILS Turnover Report

ILS Turnover Report -- Reverse

Perceptions of Open Source

Perceptions Survey – Open Source Interest

Perceptions Survey – Perceived functionality

Perceptions Survey – ILS Satisfaction

Business Models

Commercial involvement  Almost all installations of open source ILS products in the United States involve contracts with commercial companies  A very small minority of independent installations  Some non-profits offering open source support: LYRASIS  Consortial arrangement:  Consortial office provides support to libraries  Commercial firm provides support to consortial office

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)

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 CompanyDevSupSalesAdminOtherTotal Ex Libris Follett Software Company Innovative Interfaces, Inc SirsiDynix Corporation Serials Solutions Axiell The Library Corporation Polaris Library Systems VTLS Inc Koha ByWater Solutions Catalyst IT3 BibLibre43 Koha Total (estimated)15 PTFS Evergreen Equinox Software

Models of Openness

Closed Systems Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: No programmable Access to the system. Captive to the user Interfaces supplied by the developer Programmer access:

Standard RDBM Systems Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: Database administrators can access data stores involved with the system: Read-only? Read/write? Developer shares database schema Programmer access:

Open Source Model Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: All aspects of the system available to inspection and modification. Programmer access:

Open API Model Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: Core application closed. Third party developers code against the published APIs or RDBMS tables. Programmer access: Published APIs

Open Source / Open API Model Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: Core application closed. Third party developers code against the published APIs or RDBMS tables. Programmer access: Published APIs

Application with API abstraction layer Core Functionality / Business Logic Application Programming Interfaces Public Interface Staff Interface Reports Module Delivered Interfaces API abstraction layer Core Software Data stores RDMS API

Application API exposed to External Applications Core Functionality / Business Logic Application Programming Interfaces Public Interface Staff Interface Reports Module Delivered Interfaces API abstraction layer Core Software Data stores RDMS API External applications

Application API exposed to External Applications Core Functionality / Business Logic Application Programming Interfaces Public Interface Staff Interface Reports Module Delivered Interfaces use proprietary programming Core Software Data stores RDMS API External applications

Legacy LMS Model Circulation BIB Staff Interfaces: Holding / Items Circ Transact UserVendorPolicies $$$ Funds CatalogingAcquisitionsSerialsOnline Catalog Public Interfaces: Interfaces Business Logic Data Stores

` Legacy ILS Model / API Circulation BIB Staff Interfaces: Holding / Items Circ Transact UserVendorPolicies $$$ Funds CatalogingAcquisitionsSerialsOnline Catalog Public Interfaces: Interfaces Business Logic Data Stores Application Programming Interfaces

Legacy ILS Model + protocol Circulation BIB Staff Interfaces: Holding / Items Circ Transact UserVendorPolicies $$$ Funds CatalogingAcquisitionsSerialsOnline Catalog Public Interfaces: Application Programming Interfaces Protocols: SIP2 NCIP Z39.50 OAI-PMH Self-Check Interlibrary Loan System Interlibrary Loan System

Legacy ILS Model / External API Circulation BIB Staff Interfaces: Holding / Items Circ Transact UserVendorPolicies $$$ Funds CatalogingAcquisitionsSerialsOnline Catalog Public Interfaces: Application Programming Interfaces / Web Services Protocols: SIP2 NCIP Z39.50 OAI-PMH External Systems & Services Flexible Interoperability

Consolidated index Search Engine Unified Presentation Layer Search: Digital Coll ProQuest EBSCO … JSTOR Other Resources New Library Management Model ` API Layer Library Services Platform Learning Management Enterprise Resource Planning Stock Management Self-Check / Automated Return Authentication Service Smart Cad / Payment systems Discovery Service

Open source version of legacy models? or New opportunities to support modern libraries? Is Open Source ILS transformative

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

Conclusion: many opportunities  Open source vs proprietary software  New models of library automation that better integrate physical and electronic content  New discovery interfaces to improve end-user experiences  Large-scale systems that enable broad based resource sharing  Cloud-based library automation will blur many distinctions between open source and proprietary software development

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, Symphony, Polaris  Traditional Open Source ILS (print centric)  Evergreen, Koha  Hybrid Approach  Sierra 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 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   Argentina. CONABIP (Comisión Nacional de Bibliotecas Populares)  Customized version of Koha: 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 months  High level of investment and commitment to implementation

Comparative Issues:  Koha: (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  Evergreen (ILS)  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