1 Open Library Environment Canadian Library Association Annual Conference May 31, 2009

2 Agenda Part 1:Background to project (Jim Clark) Part 2:Technical overview (Barney Shum) Part 3:Status of project (Jim Clark) Part 4:Q & A

3 Part 1 Overview What is OLE? Objectives Background Principles Project assumptions

4 What is OLE? A project supported by the Mellon Foundation to design a new kind of library system for research institutions Phase 1: create a design document Key attributes: broad consultation, transparent process Phase 2 (future): Build project

5 What is OLE? "The Open Library Environment (OLE) project will develop a flexible, adaptable, and community-driven software framework to manage libraries that support research, teaching, and higher learning. The OLE framework provides processes for acquiring, describing, managing, and delivering information and transforms those processes to deliver services and resources in new ways... OLE raises the library’s information management processes to the enterprise level and integrates them into the academic and administrative infrastructure."

6 More and less than an ILS More  integration of all formats, physical and electronic  schema-neutral - flexible data model that incorporates many standards Less  removes functions that do not need to be in the library’s domain (e.g. fund accounting, identity management)  public discovery layer out of scope

7 Objectives To use open, flexible technology to produce an alternative to current products, including Integrated Library Systems (ILS) and electronic resource management (ERM) systems To automate core library functions in a way suited to modern workflows To interoperate with applications beyond the library

8 Project rationale - Summary State of current, commercial ILS products. There is a growing need for library systems to interact with other enterprise systems. Libraries need to control their own destinies.

9 Rationale – Current ILS products Perception that ILS products were designed for managing print and other tangible resources Need to rethink business processes and incorporate electronic resources from the beginning Fewer vendors and products

10 ILS Vendor options are narrowing. We are spending money and staff time buying and integrating add-on products. Marshall Breeding

11 Rationale - Interoperability Traditional ILS products do not always interoperate well with other systems used by an organization Library system must fit into the I.T. infrastructure of the institution

12 Our library business technologies are not well connected to the more modern, enterprise- level technology used in financial systems, student information systems and course management systems.

13 Rationale - Control Libraries need to control their own destinies Control over data  to offer new services Control over software  to meet local requirements for unique functionality  to make enhancements and contribute to the community

14 Emerging Options Traditional ILS (e.g. Millennium) Open source ILS (e.g. Evergreen, Koha) Commercial new generation library automation (e.g. URM – Unified Resource Management) Cloud based automation platform (e.g. OCLC WorldCat Local) Enterprise SOA (e.g. OLE)

15 Project starting point Early Initial assessment of interest in libraries April Development of proposal by a diverse group of libraries June The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation provided funding for the design project August Project underway

16 OLE planning partners

17 Principles Flexibility Community Ownership Service Orientation

18 Principles Enterprise-Level Integration Efficiency Sustainability

19 Project Assumptions OLE will provide services that will help academic & research institutions accomplish their core mission by improving the library’s ability to deliver its content and services throughout the institution’s activities. OLE will enable libraries to be more of a component with the enterprise infrastructure raising the relevance of libraries to the organization’s mission

20 Project Assumptions Adopting a model of community-source software development and a technology infrastructure based on service orientation is, in itself, a strategic innovation for libraries and universities. Digital formats will dominate our business processes. Collaborative and consortial activity is increasingly as important to libraries as work at local institutions.

21 Agenda Part 1:Background to project (Jim Clark) Part 2:Technical overview (Barney Shum) Part 3:Status of project (Jim Clark) Part 4:Q & A

22 Part 2 Overview SOA Definition SOA Explained OLE System Objective Pain Points to be Addressed in OLE by SOA Benefits of the SOA Approach in OLE Some of the technical work to date

23 SOA Definition Malte Poppensieker at the University of Trier “In Service-Oriented Architecture autonomous, loosely-coupled and coarse-grained services with well-defined interfaces provide business functionality and can be discovered and accessed through a supportive infrastructure. This allows internal and external system integration as well as the flexible reuse of application logic through the composition of services."

24 SOA Explained Modular – Loosely Coupled – Coarsely Grained – Peer-to-Peer Services Distributable – Open & Standards based – Platform Neutral – Location Transparent Clearly Defined Interface Based Swappable “Black Box” Shareable Generically useable

25 OLE System Objective OLE aims to provide a fabric of services that can be composed in a variety of ways to meet the needs of differing library scenarios. OLE offers a flexible framework that will accommodate a variety of organizational implementations. OLE is neutral in regards to how libraries organize themselves and share data and services. OLE aims not to execute existing workflows more efficiently, but to enable libraries to transition to new ways of performing their work and allocating resources more aligned to their strategic priorities.

26 For those libraries that are doing development work, there is not yet a clear framework that ensures those newly designed things will work together Better integration with enterprise IT Better integration with multiple software programs and segments of library business Better integration across library consortia (e.g., through authentication that crosses multiple systems) More flexibility in responding to rapidly changing patron behaviour The complexities of licensing, acquiring and holding materials in different formats is not easy to accommodate in current systems There are too many hierarchical, non-integrated systems Pain Points to be Addressed in OLE by SOA

27 SOA can help with reducing the constraints imposed by a monolithic system SOA can help with liberating our data SOA can help with integration goals (cost of integration kept low; interoperability) SOA can help with making things more configurable SOA can help with agility SOA can help with governance of interoperability – helps us measure, monitor and enforce policies and SLAs around consortial activities Federated identify management would have a SOA aspect Where does SOA help us

28 Benefits of the SOA Approach in OLE Service-oriented Architecture focused on placing the library within the enterprise infrastructure of the broader institution. Emphasis on partnerships and consortial interactions Community source development Governance by institutions that create and use the software A fresh approach to automating the workflows of library operations devoid of that established by legacy software products. Resource management for the library’s collections of digital and print content which can also extend to other information assets of the institution not previously under the library’s stewardship.

29 e-framework NLA Shareable Collection SUM

30 NLA Service Framework

31 OLE Reference Model (current)

32 References Open Library Management Systems, John Little (Duke University), as presented at “The Transformed Library SAMM 2008, May 8, 2008” The OLE Project: Reconceptualizing Technology for Modern Library Workflow—An SOA Approach, Michael Winkler (University of Pennsylvania), Beth Forrest Warner (University of Kansas) and Robert H. McDonald (Indiana University) ctReconceptualizing/ mework

33 Agenda Part 1:Background to project (Jim Clark) Part 2:Technical overview (Barney Shum) Part 3:Status of project (Jim Clark) Part 4:Q & A

34 Part 3 Overview What we have done so far Documents Where we’re headed

35 What have we done so far? 5 in-person meetings Public webcasts Regional design workshops Canadian workshop Formation of working groups Presentations at conferences Outreach to library directors, IT groups Conversations with other projects

36 Extensive library involvement 370+ people from 125 institutions at 12 regional workshops 385 individuals from 217 institutions in webcasts 360+ people from 106 US and 35 non-US libraries and 27 organizations or businesses subscribed to website Interaction with diverse audiences at 35+ presentations 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 MD University of PA Vanderbilt University Primary planning group:

37 Canadian workshop January 14-15, participants, 19 organizations, 6 provinces

38

39 What have we done so far? Scope document Workflow diagrams FAQ

40 Where we’re headed Identify Build Partners – Spring Post design document – June Final design document & project report for Mellon Foundation and public – July Develop build proposal – June/July Set up governance structure Start development – Fall/Winter

41 More information at: Barney Shum Library and Archives Canada Jim Clark Library and Archives Canada