1. RFID and LMS: improving interoperability Mick Fortune, 2CQR

2. The Current Picture LMS/RFID data interchange – SIP, NCIP and beyond Improving functionality vs improving interoperability – Using proprietary solutions, “lock-in?” – Using standards, transferable Interoperability with LMS the only concern? – Sharing stock may not be possible – Implications for Book Servicing – Book Supply Chain

3. RFID – The Basics Radio Frequency IDentification In use since 1946, 1960, 1990... In libraries since 1999 (USA) Key variables include: – Active or Passive – Capacity – Size – Frequency

4. Key Issues Affecting Interoperability 1. Frequency: – Mostly HF, some UHF (Near and Far Field) 2. Tag Structure and Content – What goes on the tag? – In what order? – In what format? 3. Longevity

5. 1. Frequency BandLF HFUHFMicrowave Frequency30–300kHz3–30MHz300 MHz–3GHz2–30 GHz Typical RFID Frequencies 125–134 kHz 13.56 MHz 433 MHz or 865 – 956MHz 2.45 GHz 2.45 GHz Approximate read range less than 0.5 metre Up to 1.5 metres 433 MHz = up to 100 metres 865- 956 MHz = 0.5 to 5 metres Up to 10m Typical data transfer rate less than 1 kilobit per second (kbit/s) Approximately 25 kbit/s 433–956 = 30 kbit/s 2.45 =100 kbit/s Up to 100 kbit/s Characteristics Short-range, low data transfer rate, penetrates water but not metal. Higher ranges, reasonable data rate (similar to GSM phone), penetrates water but not metal. Long ranges, high data transfer rate, concurrent read of <100 items, cannot penetrate water or metals Long range, high data transfer rate, cannot penetrate water or metal Typical use Animal ID Car immobiliser Smart Labels, Contact-less travel cards, Access & Security Specialist animal tracking LogisticsMoving vehicle toll We are (mostly) here! But some of us are here.

6. 2. Tag Structure and Content Data Models – The “format” of the tag. Library or retail standards? Open or closed? – The data content Which fields? What order? We need some standards!

7. The ISO and the Data Model Debate Two schools of thought – Freedom of choice vs the minimalists US, UK and Australia vs Scandinavia and the Dutch Both have existing models to protect

8. How do I Decide? The “Freedom of Choice” model – Any data I want (= complex data management) – Ability to deliver new services (= devalue the LMS) – Better offline circulation (= devalue the OPAC) – Slower throughput (= devalue the service) Minimalist (“Licence Plating”) – Lets the LMS do the data management – Uses RFID as an aid not a replacement

9. A Real Life Comparison Relocating Stock Minimalist Model Use Catalogue to Identify items to be moved. Batch change location of items Download list of UIDS and titles to DLA Collect Items from Shelves Ship Freedom of Choice Model Use Catalogue to Identify items to be moved. Batch change location of items Download list of UIDS and titles to DLA Collect Items from Shelves Process each item to change tag data. Ship

10. 3. Longevity Current chip is guaranteed for 100,000 cycles (= 50,000 loans), but How long is the equipment I need to read them guaranteed for? Tags developed for retail are often declared “end of life” (Norwich) by manufacturer. Agreeing standards will create a stronger lobby for longer guarantees.

11. So is RFID still a “Good Thing”? UK stalled by lack of standards and vision but with true interoperability can deliver: – Major improvements to existing services Stock management, self service for non books, theft reporting – New services Automated accessioning, Interactive learning environments.

12. Some Considerations Will the lack of standards prevent my service development? Do I want to share stock with other libraries? Should I licence plate or add local data? Will my servicing company/LMS cope with my data requirements? Do the benefits of RFID outweigh its limitations?

13. Thank You! Questions?