1. Disintegrating the Library Management System: Robert McDonald, Gary Charbonneau, Mary Popp Librarians Day -- May 15, 2009 Paths Forward from Vendor Products to Open Source

2. Our Plan for Today Provide context for Integrated Library Systems (ILS). Introduce the ILS open source “option” Show examples of vendor products Show examples of open source products Introduce OLE, a new concept for open source ILS systems.

3. Examining Our Roots The origins of the ILS, or “why are we in this mess”? It all started with MARC Cataloging – the first module Circulation – the second Public interface was developed late Acquisitions and Serials – lagging behind

4. Dis-Integration? Integrated system pulls together a variety of separate functions or modules. Now we are reversing that trend. Dis-integration is the separation of these functional modules. Most often separation of back room tasks from user interface.

5. Rice University Library - Sirsi

6. Rice University Library - AquaBrowser

7. Vanderbilt University - Sirsi

8. Vanderbilt University - Primo

9. IUPUC - Sirsi

10. IUPUC – WorldCat Local

11. University of Florida - Aleph

12. University of Florida - Endeca

13. Matrix of ILS Development Open Source OLE (back room only) Evergreen, Koha VuFind, LibraryFind, etc. Discovery Aquabrowser Vendor Front End Endeca, Encore, Primo SIRSIDynix Enterprise Vendor Back End Standard ILS systems

14. Current Library Systems In addition to the core ILS layer libraries operate separate systems to handle the following: Electronic Resources Management System OpenURL Linking Systems Proxy or VPN Systems/Identity Mgmt Systems Advanced Discovery Systems Digital Library Content Systems Digital Preservation Systems Learning Management System Admin or Integration

15. Legacy ILS Functionality Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Serials Staff Interfaces: Public User Interface: Data Stores: Functional modules: Vendor Based ePurchasing Vendor Based Metadata Enhancement Legacy ILS

16. Legacy ILS Functionality + eContent Module + Advanced Discovery Interface CirculationAcquisitions CatalogingSerials Federated Search/ Advanced Discovery OpenURL Linking Electronic Resource Mgmt. System Unified Workflow Interface for Staff Learning Mgmt./Campus Portal Feeds Proxy/VPN for eContent Access Legacy ILS +

17. Good Search Now Raw MARC data exports and reformats MARC from ILS Flat text files Parse text files Indices Web 2.0 Engine User Interface HTTP NextGen Search System/Faceted Search

18. Open Source/Community Source Library software can be created as either Open Source or Community Source. The difference is in the way the user community is defined. Can be limited in function or full-featured. Allow for local specifications and user needs.

19. Open Source Projects http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource

20. Open Source Software Allows simultaneous development by different groups to meet different needs. Software source code is freely available. Users can use, change or redistribute it with no restrictions. Implies collaboration among users.

21. Community Source Software A variation of Open Source software Led by a community in which some organizations commit resources. Software is available through an Open Source license but copyright is held by the group. Sakai and Kuali (both used at IU) are examples.

22. Originally a project for the Georgia PINES consortium. Subsequently adopted by consortia in British Columbia, Michigan, and Indiana (“Evergreen Indiana”), plus a few individual libraries. Web site: http://open-ils.org/http://open-ils.org/ Live catalog (Georgia Library PINES): http://gapines.org/opac/en- US/skin/default/xml/index.xml http://gapines.org/opac/en- US/skin/default/xml/index.xml Evergreen

23. Univ. of Prince Edward Is. - Evergreen

24. Koha “The first open source ILS.” Originated in New Zealand. Used by smaller libraries. Web site: http://www.koha.org/about-koha/http://www.koha.org/about-koha/ Live catalog (Antioch University, Santa Barbara, CA): http://opac.antiochsb.edu/http://opac.antiochsb.edu/

25. Blacklight From University of Virginia. Design goals: Relevance ranking. Faceted browsing. Ability to include “siloed” materials. Customizable interfaces for different user groups. “Re-mixable data.” Web site: http://blacklightopac.org/http://blacklightopac.org/ Live catalog: http://blacklight.betech.virginia.edu/http://blacklight.betech.virginia.edu/

26. VuFind Developed at Villanova U. but implemented first by National Library of Australia and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. Design goals included: Faceted browsing. Inclusion of external content. Social networking and personal recommendations. Indexing of local resources. Web site: http://www.vufind.org/http://www.vufind.org/ Live catalog: http://library.villanova.edu/Findhttp://library.villanova.edu/Find

27. Georgia Tech University - Voyager

28. Georgia Tech University - VuFind

29. eXtensible Catalog Project hosted at University of Rochester and funded by Mellon Foundation. Design goals include: Easy access to physical and digital collections across multiple databases, metadata schemas, and standards. Ability to reveal library content to content & learning management systems and web search engines. Web site: http://www.extensiblecatalog.org/http://www.extensiblecatalog.org/ Live catalog: None yet. Open source software slated for release end of Mar. 2009.

30. LibraryFind From Oregon State University. Design goals: Universal platform for research. Open source metasearch software with OpenURL, includes the library catalog Two clicks—one to “find” and one to “get” Fast, extensible and understandable Customizable interfaces. Web site: http://libraryfind.org/homehttp://libraryfind.org/home Live catalog: http://search.library.oregonstate.edu/record/search http://search.library.oregonstate.edu/record/search

31. In five years, if it isn’t digital, it will be invisible. 1. TRUE 2. FALSE 3. CAN’T DECIDE or go to http://m.textthemob.com/id801 To vote, text to 41411 "RETURN ID801 option" Ex. “RETURN ID801 1” QUESTION 1

32. Question 4 http://www.textthemob.com/print/801

33. Open Library Environment Project The OLE Project Framework will be used to build a scaleable, interoperable, library management system, that fits within the modern academic & research enterprise infrastructure & enables resource re-use, re-allocation, & sustainability for the future.

34. 34 OLE Project and Mellon Foundation Initial assessment of interest in libraries – early 2008. Proposal development by a diverse group of academic and national libraries – April 2008 The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation provided funding for the design project – June 2008 Project underway August 2008 – July 2009 Key Deliverable – OLE Design Document – July 2009

35. Current OLE Participation Planning group: Columbia University Duke University Lehigh University Indiana University Library and Archives Canada National Library of Australia OhioLink Orbis Cascade Alliance Rutgers University University of Chicago University of Florida University of Kansas University of Maryland University of Pennsylvania Vanderbilt University 100+ libraries have sent representatives to business process modeling workshops http://oleproject.org/workshops/ 150+ participants in webcasts 100+ libraries have one or more individuals subscribed to OLE website Regional meetings with library directors, CIOs, CFOs

36. What is SOA? 36 Service Oriented Architecture Service System capabilities that provide access to functions and data are appropriately exposed to other components (applications, devices, networks, etc.) Oriented Uses “open” interoperability protocols Architecture In its purest form, it’s the connection of systems (simple or complex)

37. SOA Video

38. Leveraging Enterprise Systems & Content Better interoperability and integration with: Campus identity management systems Leveraging both on-campus and externally (consortiums) Better ability to work with trusted peers (ex. Shibboleth) Campus HR and Student systems Why copy faculty and student information into the ILS? Campus financial & purchasing systems Take advantage of existing vendor information, invoice management, bill paying, etc. Will require hard discussions of policies and workflow, but pay-off is potentially more secure data (fewer copies) and more efficient processes

39. OLE Reference Model 39

40. OLE Build Project Currently in progress Build Proposal to Mellon September 2009 Looking for Build Partners Utilizing existing infrastructure Kuali Rice Middleware Existing Discovery Interfaces 2 year timeline

41. Steele Video

42. Questions? Thanks to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for OLE Funding! Follow OLE at www.twitter.com/oleproject

43. Questions? Robert McDonald – robert@indiana.edu: twitter@mcdonaldrobert@indiana.edu Gary Charbonneau – charbonn@indiana.edu Mary Popp – popp@indiana.edu