CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 IntroductionChange and hope have been part of the human civilization for centuries. Libraries being part of the academia and human civilization since founding of the first university in 700 BC have crossed many borders while transitioning from their ancient and Middle Ages counter-parts to the contemporary ones. It is a long and progressive journey for the profession of librarianship introduced since 700 BC, to meet the growing and changing needs of students and faculty including the method of obtaining information from them. During the ancient time, information was written and stored on clay tablets and handwritten materials. This method changed to printed materials during the medieval times. Then microforms, CD-ROMs, and the online storage methods were introduced in the twentieth century including databases on the World Wide Web (www). These changes are, perhaps, unavoidable and compelling because of the revolution of information technology that has kept the people in the information related activity, on their toes.
These developments highlight the day-to-day practices and procedures of libraries with major structural changes in terms of their collection, organization and dissemination of information and knowledge. Today, when most library users prefer to access information from the convenience of their desktops, laptops and mobiles, it is but natural that libraries move from onsite library services to web based library services. The major impact of these developments has been even greater on Integrated Library Systems (ILS), the technological backbone of the library operations and services (Breeding, 2008, 2011a).
Library automation or application of computer based systems to automate one or all functional areas of a typical library, have had a history of evolution going back to the mid 1950’s. These systems are generally termed as Library Management Systems (LMS) or Library Automation Software. LMS have also been referred to as Integrated Library Systems in later years to reflect the fact that all functions are managed via
2 central database. The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) developments have given opportunity to commercial vendors to create innovative ILS products, equipped to deliver full breadth of Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC), circulation, serials management, external interfaces (especially Z39.50 compliance) and statistical reporting (Balnaves, 2008).
Today even though there are several commercial library automation packages available, the costs of these packages are beyond the reach of most of the libraries in the developing countries (Kumar, 2005; Morton-Owens, 2011). Even if a library can afford the purchase of commercial ILS, it becomes difficult to sustain the recurring cost involved by way of maintenance and the upgradation to the newer versions of the same. This makes the commercial packages beyond the means of many libraries in the Indian scenario (Haravu, 2004).
Library profession has learned and deployed several technological solutions developed by many associations, organizations, research organizations and funding bodies which aimed at bringing the ‘Best Practices’ by introducing standards for description of collection, resource sharing and service delivery. These solutions are either free or available at an affordable price. From Computerized Documentation Service / Integrated Set of Information Systems (CDS/ISIS), a product developed by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which was debated, discussed and deployed for recording and searching the bibliographical details of library collection (Boss, 2003), to, Open Library Environment (OLE) project which is aimed at freeing the ILS from its monolithic nature into one which supports new workflows via Services Oriented Architectures (SOA) and web services; librarians have actively participated (Haravu, 2010).
In 1999, ILS arena entered the Open Source Movement (OSM) by the release of Koha from Horowhenua Library Trust developed by Kapito Communication, New Zealand. Since that time Open source Software (OSS) have shown sustained development of features and significant cross-fertilization of ideas based on shared experiences (Balnaves, 2008). In the last decade, several attempts were made to develop ILS on Open Source platform, and as a result, we have nine projects: ABCD, Evergreen, Emilda, Koha, NewGenLib, OPALS, OpenBiblio, PMBILS and PhpMyLibrary,
3 which are drawing attention of librarian community. According to Marshall Breeding (2008) the major OSILS products are: Koha, Evergreen, NewGenLib and OPALS, while there may be some additional products but these four have emerged as the most widely implemented and serve as good examples for the current state of the art of the OSILS products.
Dorman (2002) has identified the difficulty that OSILS may face in the context of matured commercial systems in marketplace. Nevertheless, because libraries are turning increasingly to implement OSSs for automation, institutional repositories, digital library and range of other functions (Herbert, 2008) OSS will increasingly feature as a mainstream option in the software section process for libraries. The technologies that drive Web 2.0 have also added new energy to the development of OSILS products and as a result it has enhanced the consideration of OSILS products during the software selection process (Balnaves, 2008; Breeding, 2010).
The implementation of an ILS in a library is not a single event. The core activity starts with the selection process, and selection of ILS is an exercise by itself. Evaluation of commercial software has necessarily focused on two dimensions – the functional features of the system and the operational platform (Slater, 2003). With OSS, it is not only the source code that is open for inspection, the data design, flexibility to the application, the user community, database schema, the service support and the status is open for evaluation (Balnaves, 2008 ). When it comes to selection of OSILS, the four factors – Reduced cost, innovative products developed by collaboration, support for the techno-savvy librarians and future proof are the assured results (Boss, 2008). When it comes to features and functionality, each of these products had a wide range of differences. They also differ in their appeal to different types of libraries. The evaluation of ILS is a tedious research oriented exercise; this can be justified by the opening note made by Virginia Tech Library System (VTLS) (2004) in the software evaluation process ‘Integrated Library System is a complex, multi-module beast, making exceedingly difficult to distinguish between one ILS and another. From 50000 feet, they look alike… (!)’ (Exclamatory mark supplied).
4
1.2 Integrated Library System (ILS)
Breeding (2004) describes the term Integrated Library System as ‘the software that automate different library work categories. This common application is tied together with data residing in common database that are related to many different tasks. ILS aims in automating many library tasks that would otherwise be repetitive, labor intensive and inefficient’.
With the technological innovations, the definition of ILS is changing; the concentration on digital and electronic resources has changed the idea of what an ILS should do and look. The ILS has many synonymous usages in India such as Integrated Online Library System (IOLS), Library Management Systems (LMS) and Library Automation Software. The definition of an ILS and complete understanding of its use, are the foundation for the selection process (Slater, 2003). Some of the often cited definitions are:
“An ILS allows data describing of library materials, to be accessed through many different modules depending on the needs of the user, starting with staff input in acquisitions and cataloguing, and ending with user access to holdings through the online public catalog and the circulation system” (Sullivan, 1990).
“An Integrated Library System (ILS) is an automated system in which all the functional modules share a common bibliographical database.” (Lopata, 2003)
“A truly integrated online library system is a relational database, containing bibliographical records for each title. All library functions are processed from these records and updates appear in real times.” (Dzurinko, 2000)
“Integrated library systems are elaborately designed and crafted computer applications with extensive knowledge of the functional needs of libraries and the exacting standards that are applied in such systems.” (Haravu, 2004)
5 “Library automation is the general term for information and
communications technologies (ICT’s) that are used to replace manual systems in the library. The functions that may be automated are any or all of the following: acquisition, cataloging, circulation, serials management and reference services (OPAC). When the library management system shares a common database to perform all the basic functions of a library, the system is integrated.” (UNESCO, 2004)
Regardless of the above quoted definitions, an ILS must be able to handle the housekeeping and administrative activities of library, having ability to accommodate many format of collections, providing searching on the Internet, and supports resource sharing. Functionality and flexibility is the key for a successful ILS (Salter, 2003). Based on the growing capabilities in the use of the web, digital components, and electronic resources, the expectations of an ILS have expanded. The Steering Committee Report (1997) of University of Iowa, states the following features to be performed by the ILS:
• Full support for traditional library functions
• Seamless movement between functional modules
• Graphical User Interfaces (GUI)
• Ability to acquire, provide access to, manage, and control local, national and global resources in many formats
• Web servers with seamless connectivity
• Full support for national standards and industry-standards system components
• Powerful and flexible search engines
• Technology that is adaptable to future technological innovations.
1.2.1 Evolution of ILS
In the broad sense, between 1954 and today, library automation has evolved through three incremental phases – efficiency of internal operations, access to local resources and access to resources outside the library. Thus, a clear shift can be seen from local concern to global concerns. According to Borgman (1997), we are now at a stage
6 where interoperability among systems and services has become the key objective. However, while this may be true for the developed world, many libraries in the developing world are still largely seeking automation solutions to improve the efficiency of local operations, rather than improved access to resource outside their libraries (Haravu, 2004).
The researcher for convenience has described the growth and evolution of ILS in phases which were marked with the technological innovations in the area of Information and Communication Technologies. Following are the phases identified which describe the evolution of ILS:
a) First Phase - 1950 to 1960 b) Second Phase - 1960 to 1970 c) Middle Phase - 1970 to 1980 d) Pre-Internet Phase - 1980 to 1990 e) Internet Phase - 1990 to 2000 f) Web 1.0 Phase - 2000 to 2005 g) Web 2.0 Phase - 2005 to 2010
Literature in the field describes the attempts to use semi-automated methods using punched cards, paper tape, ‘peak-a-boo’ cards and photographic systems in libraries. Early efforts to automate library operations and services using computers began during mid-1950, almost a decade after digital computers became available (Haravu, 2004).
a) First Phase - 1950 to 1960
The major developments seen during the first phase were –
• The emphasis was on automation of library housekeeping activities among the library community in developed countries, with the availability of computers.
• Efforts were seen on most of the applications which were home grown.
• The main-frame computer based on batch processed systems is seen in the library automation projects.
7 The first report on Library computerization was submitted by Tillitt in 1954 to automate the US Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS) (Tillit, 1957). Automation of NOTS with ability to search on author, title and abstract was completed in 1958 (Barton, Schatz & Caplan, 1959).
b) Second Phase - 1960 to 1970
Libraries began to automate with the greater involvement of local expertise of library computer professionals and find funds to meet the development costs. The literature and books published during this period in developed countries explain how to design and develop library systems (Hayes & Becker, 1974; Kilgour, 1969).
The major developments seen during the second phase were –
• Stand-alone un-integrated applications beginning with circulation.
• Metadata standards for bibliographic records – Machine Readable Catalogue (MARC21) became available.
• Emphasis was on exchanging bibliographic data, centralized cataloguing and distribution of cataloguing cards.
• Systems were developed by vendors which leveraged the catalogue data in other modules: circulation and acquisitions.
• First generation ILS came into existence.
• The efforts were targeted on single libraries.
• The developments were mostly on mini-computer and some home-grown. In 1961, Luhn used the computers to produce a Keyword-in-Context or KWIC index to the titles of articles in Chemical Abstract (Luhn, 1958). The MEDLARs (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System) became operational in 1964 (Austin, 1968). First online circulation control applications developed and installed at Illinois State Library, in 1966 (Hamilton, 1969). The development of first online reference retrieval system – DIALOG, (referred as the predecessor of www) in 1966 (Summit, 1967) opened the doors for collaborative efforts. Establishment of Online Computer Library Center (OCLC; Formerly: Ohio College Library Center) in 1967 initiated the sharing of Cataloguing System (Haravu, 2004). Bell Laboratories Library used the Online
8 Circulation system which used the converted catalogue records, in 1968 (Kennedy, 1968). A development which had great significance, one that continues to influence library automation was the initiative of the Library of Congress (LOC)’s Machine Readable Catalogue (MARC) started in 1961, the pilot project carried between 1966 and 1968. The distribution started in 1968 (Haravu, 2004). The first acquisition system was in place during 1968 at Washington State University Library. The acquisition system was accessed by Order Number (Haravu 2004). The first online acquisition system was introduced in 1969 at the Laval University in Quebec, Canada (Varennes, 1970). The files were accessed from Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) and the database could be queried and claims produced.
c) Middle Phase - 1970 to 1980
This period may be said to be the adolescence of library automation. The major developments during this period were –
• Networking via Local Area Network (LAN) and Wide Area Network (WAN) became possible and libraries began to ask for networking of closely related libraries.
• Interactive applications became possible with Graphical User Interface (GUI).
• Vendor systems with networking capabilities became available.
• ILS with similar functionalities with small differences is seen in the market.
• Home grown systems were felt unnecessary and not cost effective.
• The developments were mainly on Microcomputer-based systems with richer interfaces.
In the early to mid-1970s, ILS designed on minicomputers which handles the acquisitions and circulation, were brought by the commercial players – CLSI, DataPhase, Gaylord, Geac, Ringgold Management Systems, Universal Library Systems, Utlas, and other Companies. In 1975, Virginia Tech Library Systems (VTLS) – now Virtua, stood as a forerunner to develop the online catalog and circulation control system. With the reduced cost of computer hardware during late 1970’s, libraries in US and UK started the bibliographical record entry, which were then augmented with data needed for acquisitions, cataloguing, and circulation (Haravu, 2004)
9
d) Pre-Internet Phase - 1980 to 1990
The major developments during this period were –
• ILS market provided new features which obeyed the International Standards like MARC21 and Anglo American Cataloguing Rules-2 (AACR2) compliances.
• Client-server LAN systems became the norm.
• First Generation OPACs made their entry. The OPACs were heavily librarian-centric in design.
• Federated searching became possible via the z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol.
• The proprietary Database Management Systems were replaced by the Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS) based backend systems.
• Structured Query Language (SQL) based searching was introduced.
e) Internet Phase - 1990 to 2000
The major developments during this period were –
• Initial move was to host the OPAC on a Web server; other functional modules were being still administered locally.
• Rich GUI front ends using tools like Visual Basic, Visual C++ became available.
• Reliable Internet connectivity became available widely and cheaply in the 1990s.
• New client server systems that used the web for data storage and transaction processing became available.
• Platforms like JAVA and .NET became the development options for web applications.
10
f) Web 1.0 Phase - 2000 to 2005
The major development during this period were –
• The web became the platform of choice for software.
• ILS development philosophies changed from finished product to work-in-progress and frequently updates delivered over the web.
• From an information delivery platform, the web became a participative platform, for the users.
• Attempts were made by the commercial vendors to move the web services which were librarian centric to user centric.
g) Web 2.0 Phase - 2005 to 2010
The major developments during this period are –
• Open source ILS offerings made entry into market place.
• Dissatisfaction with the monolithic nature of ILS and the OPACs was increasingly voiced.
• Web services via protocols and Application Program Interface (API) resulted in information reuse.
• Greater interoperability, Rich Sites Syndication (RSS) feeds, Mashups enhanced user experience in discovery applications made the ILS developers and the library community to think and act beyond the web-based applications.
• The consolidations and mergers in the commercial ILS markets provide the evidence of upheavals in the industry.
• With the change of role in Librarianship – ILS are expected to take care of institutional repositories, manage digital / electronic resources, e-learning and content management.
The historical overview of the evolution of ILS can also be analyzed from the point of development and use of technology, the changes from using mainframe to mini-computers to micromini-computers; un-integrated system to integrated systems; single library systems to multi-library to network to web-based systems. A major technological influence has been the growth of web and its distributed environment under different platforms, formats, languages and data models (Haravu, 2010).
11
1.3 Open Source Software
Open source software (OSS) is not a new concept. The term “Open Source” was proposed by Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute in 1995 (Peterson, 2001) and it was recorded by Eric Raymond at Linux Congress in 1997, in his seminar paper “The Cathedral and The Bazaar”. Although the term ‘Open source’ was coined in the late 1990’s, the concepts behind this particular way of developing software have existed since a long time (Muffatto, 2006).
1.3.1 The Definition
The Open Source Definition was derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) composed by Bruce Perens (Muffatto, 2006). The definition was developed, discussed, directed and re-defined with the publication of the paper of Eric Raymond ‘The Cathedral and the Bazzar’ in 1997. The key efforts which has given shape to the OSS definition are as follows -
• Bruce Perens, the producers of the Debian GNU/Linux system, drafted the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) on August 18, 1995, which was the part of Debian Social Contract. The DFSG was a set of commitments to be adopted and abided by the free software community1.
• With the suggestions of the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution developers on July 5, 1997, it was approved as “Debian's publicly stated policy”.
• Bruce Perens later removed the Debian-specific references from the DFSG to create The Open Source Definition in February 1998.
• In 2004 the OSI added clause 10 to deal with some issues surrounding click-wrap licensing.
• By the middle of 2004, OSS was clearly defined with the identification 10 components that make the definition.
The discussion in the above said efforts primarily dominated on the definitions of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI) that finally reflected in the Open Source Definition (OSD). Though certain wordings are very
1
12 near to each other, the FSF with its anti-commercial drive applies stronger benchmarks for OSD. This was also related to the fact that the FSF and Richard Stallman included basic thoughts on social effects of the software development and its methods, whereas the OSD places in the foreground technical and methodical aspects thus dealing clearly more pragmatic with the subject (Muffatto, 2006). Core aspects of the OSD described by Altenhoner (2005) are as follows:
• Free re-distribution
• Accessibility of the quell code
• Changeability of the code and re-use in new software
• Inviolability of the original code
• No discrimination of certain persons or groups
• No restrictions for certain areas of usage (especially restrictions to commercial sectors)
• Distribution of the license (no distribution with new rules!)
• License must not be valid for a certain product (e.g., as part of a software distribution)
• License must not compromise other software (that e.g., is also included at the same data storage; disclosure agreements)
The rationale of 10 commandants of OSD has been discussed in detail by the open source community2 and by Muffatto (2006).
The Open Source Definition allows greater liberties with licensing than the GPL does. In particular, the Open Source Definition allows greater promiscuity when mixing proprietary and open-source software (2001)3. In general OSS is defined as ‘the Open Source Definition, notably, presents an open source philosophy, and further defines the terms of usage, modification and redistribution of open source software’. The researcher has come across the following definitions which clearly contemplates the understanding of OSS through OSD:
2
http://opensource.org
3
13 “Computer software that is distributed under a licensing arrangement
and which allows the computer code to be shared, viewed and modified by other users and organisations. Open source often refers to collaborative projects in the public domain, or programs which the author(s) permit limited modification and redistribution of the code based on specific licensing agreements. The outputs of open-source projects may or may not be products that are free.” Victoria Parliament Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (2005).
“Open source is a method of software distribution where a programmer creates a program and makes it available for others to use without cost, as well as modify the source code and redistribute the modifications to the users and developers community” Kwantlen Polytechnic University (2009).
“The Open Source is a model for collaborative programming infrastructure that co-opts copyright law by freely releasing source code to the general public for use, modification, and redistribution without licensing restrictions” (Krishnamurthy, 2008).
“Open source is an approach to the design, development and distribution of software, offering practical accessibility to software’s source code” (Abram, 2009).
“OSS is a software category whose source code is made freely available to the general public for inspection, modification and incorporation in other software” (Schlumpf, 1999).
Richard Stallman defines “Free Software” and “Open Source Software” as – “Open source is a development methodology; Free software is a social movement” (Gay, 2004). Free software and Open Source Software are nearly the same for practical purposes. Both are often licensed under the same GNU General Public License (GNU Operating System, 1991). A term containing both the concepts is Free / Open Source Software (F/OSS), but for brevity the researcher uses OSS.
14 The researcher has considered the definition by Peter Schlumpf (1999) as it reflects the understanding of GNUGPL and the library community understanding about the term OSS. Further, it stress on the availability of source code, freedom to inspect, modify and incorporate the software for the better use.
1.3.2 Open Source Software (OSS): An Introduction
During 1960’s, IBM and other computer manufacturers sold their large-scale commercial machines with free software. “Free” meant that the source code was free and available for modification; therefore, the software could be improved and customized. Till mid 1970s, the hardware was the product being sold, not the software. Richard Stallman, Computer Scientist working at Michigan Institute of Technology (MIT) Artificial Intelligence Lab, was not happy with the commercialization of the software, which begin during late 1970s. In January 1984 Stallman quit MIT Lab to be free from the policies and began creating an operating system - GNU (pronounced “guh-NEW”), a recursive acronym for “GNUs Not UNIX” – the first free software, creating a new software–sharing community. In 1984 Stallman released the first piece of his work, an editor called GNU Emacs (Bretthauer, 2001).
To overcome the legal issues faced by the distribution of GNU, Stallman developed a legal distribution instrument which he referred as “Copyleft”. In 1985, he distributed GNU under the copyleft licensing agreement called as “GNU General Public License (GNU GPL)”. The first version of GNU GPL was released in 1989; the second in 1991; the third and current version in 2008 (Muffatto, 2004).
Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in October 1985 to support the development of GNU. By 1991, FSF had written everything for GNU except the Kernel, the part that ties the entire system together. By that time, Linus Torvalds had released the Linux Kernel, and he and others combined it with the rest of the GNU Operating System of Stallman’s GNU’s Not UNIX. The open source so developed has ever since been referred to as Linux. Stallman argues, and some evidence demonstrates, that it should more correctly be called as GNU-Linux (Bretthauer, 2001).
15 The FSF products are made available without charge via anonymous FTP; at that time access to Internet was not very common. As an alternate means of distributing the software, GNU were sent to the people on tape for $150 (Muffatto, 2004). To justify the questions for the charges made for the Free Software, Stallman (2001) says:
“…they are confused by the multiple meaning of the English word Free. One meaning refers to price and another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I’m referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer”.
The precursor of OSS was Free Software. The word Free is termed for liberty to view and modify the source code. The FSF allowed the user to participate in developing and changing the software for better service. The Free Software Community later adopted the term Open Source proposed by Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute in 1995 and recorded by Eric Raymond at Linux Congress in 1997, in his paper The Cathedral and the Bazaar. The paper compares the commercial software development model – ‘the cathedral’ to the new development model based on a community of dispersed software developers on the free distribution of codes - ‘the bazaar’. The term “Open Source” was adopted by the software developers and user group since it is more business-friendly (Williams, 2002). The paper ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar’ marked the beginning of the study of voluntary development communities, their behaviors and the economic sustainability of the Open Source Software and the module.
In February 1998, Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond founded the Open Source Initiative (OSI) with the main aim of creating a document that would precisely define Open Source Software (Perens, 1999). In April of the same year, the OSI officially approved the term “Open Source” to indicate the accessibility, efficiency, reliability, flexibility and the innovation that would characterize the Open Source Software (Muffatto, 2004).
16
1.3.3 OSS and Libraries
The Open Source movement in libraries is based on the “sharing and improving” principle. Morgan (2008) describes the similarities between the OSS Development and the principles of librarianship under three areas – information sharing, human interaction and impact of technology:
• Information sharing – Morgan identifies the similarity in sharing of
information as - prominence is given to “open access” in both OSS and libraries; the gift culture; gaining reputation is the philosophy of advertising; the usage of “stuff” is user dependent; and finally, he remarks that shared information will be used to improve position by both OSS and libraries.
• Human interaction - Morgan stresses on the ‘human interaction’ as a
necessary part of user service and success of both the librarianship and OSS development. He explains the collaborative efforts in both the professions for problem solving, user education, serving the community and the understanding the user need.
• Impact of technology – Morgan explains the havoc created among software
programmers and libraries due to the technological development as – “open source on the removal of necessity for programmers” and “advent of web on the removal of concept of libraries”. Further, he explains the positive impact had on these developments on the professions.
The above similarities identified by Morgan convey the message that libraries and the open source community are concerned with the open access to their products and services, by working with specific standards and producing a suitable open system. Libraries, in numerous areas, employ information technology (IT) and thus are potential users of OSS (Altenhoner, 2005). With OSS, libraries will enjoy the advantage of using stable, secure, auditable and extensible commercial alternatives. Moreover, using OSS guarantees that the standards and protocols used in the library will always be open to examination, and helps the library community to build upon previous successes (Altman, 2001; Dennison, 2011).
17 The library community first began to take note of OSS in 1999, because of the effort of Daniel Chudnov, Librarian of the Yale University. He initiated the Open Source Systems for Libraries Project4 and wrote an introductory article in Library Journal
titled “Open source software: the future of library systems” in August 1999. Chudnov mentions three library related OSS projects: an interlibrary loan document delivery system at Ohio State University; an automated linking system to electronic resources at Yale; and, a draft of an ILS by Frumkin at the University of Arizona. In his article, Chudnov (1999) notes the similarities between philosophies of librarians and OSS. In his remarks Chudnov (1999) suggests that the library system vendors should release the source code and sell service contracts. He urges the librarians to take part in shaping Open Source Software in building the ILS by helping with evaluation and documentation. The use of OSS in libraries were advocated by Tennant (2000, 2003), Cervone (2003), Morgan (2004), Boss (2005), Breeding (2009), Kumar & Abraham (2010), Hansen (2011) and Muller (2011).
1.4 Open Source Integrated Library Systems (OSILS)
As advocated by Chudnov (1999), Breeding (2004), Salter (2004) and Riewe (2008), when we say the software for libraries, it will be basically for automation of library housekeeping and information sharing. Since the late 1990’s, attempts were made to bring the concept of OSS in libraries by developing ILS’s (Boss, 2005). While OSILS developers have been struggling to provide basic features, commercial ILS vendors surpass them with increasingly complex features such as live chat reference, video, community development, making it difficult for OSS to enter the ILS market (Breeding, 2002).
Koha claims the status of being the first OSILS. A group of three libraries in New Zealand under Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT) contracted with Katipo Communications to develop a web-based library system in 1999. They named the product as “Koha” giving the meaning ‘for gift’ or ‘donation’, and released it as Open Source, allowing libraries to use, develop and support on January 1, 2000 (Breeding, 2008). This study has identified nine OSILS products: ABCD, Emilda, Evergreen,
4
18
Koha, NewGenLib, OPALS, OpenBiblio, PMBILS and PhpMyLibrary, which found to be active and shows implementation. The literature study reveals that – Koha, Evergreen, NewGenLib and OPALS - as most referred and most widely implemented and serve as good examples of the current state-of-the-art of the OSILS (Breeding, 2008).
The growth and development of OSILS product, and the OSILS in Indian scenario is narrated in Chapter 3 subsection 3.4.
1.5 Statement of the problem
This study examines the availability, awareness and adoption of OSS for library automation in college libraries in India. The title of the research topic is An
Analytical Study of OSS (Open Source Software) for College Libraries. The two
keywords “Open Source Software” and “College Libraries” used in the title require explanation as their connotation and description vary in literature. An attempt has been made here to list the important definitions of these concepts that are relevant to the present study.
1.5.1 Open Source Software
In the current study, the researcher has considered the OSILS products, where it is true to the advocacy made by the Chudnov (1999), Breeding (2004), Salter (2004) and Riewe (2008); when we say the software for libraries it will be basically for automation of library housekeeping and information sharing activities. Hence, the researcher has considered the OSILS products among the OSS products which are suitable for automation activity of college libraries in India, for the study. The researcher uses the term OSILS keeping the automation of housekeeping activities, OPAC and the management of electronic documents in college libraries.
The literature study provides numerous definitions for the term ‘Integrated Library System.’ These definitions aim at explaining the concept under a common understanding as ‘usage of computers for automating the manual operations of library housekeeping activities and providing the reference services to the users.’
19 The researcher has adopted the following definition from UNESCO for this study –
“Library automation is the general term for information and communications technologies (ICTs) that are used to replace manual systems in the library. The functions that may be automated are any or all of the following: acquisition, cataloging, circulation, serials management and reference services (OPAC). When the library management system shares a common database to perform all the basic functions of a library, the system is integrated5.”
1.5.2 College Libraries
The Cambridge online dictionary defines college as “any place for specialized education after the age of 16, where people study or train to get knowledge and/or skills6.”
The Freedictionary describes the college as “an institution of higher learning that grants the Bachelor's degree in liberal arts or science or both ; an undergraduate division or school of an university offering courses and granting degrees in a particular field; A school, sometimes but not always an University, offering special instruction in professional or technical subjects7.”
The Indian dictionary.com defines college as “a constituent unit of a university, furnishing courses of instruction in the liberal arts and sciences, usually leading to a Bachelor's degree8.”
For the current study, the researcher has adopted the college definition by the Cambridge online dictionary as it substantiates the college system of India.
• The age of the college going students will be more than 16 years as they will pass through the Pre-University courses after attaining the minimum age limit.
• The Indian education system stresses on the specialized education having main streams of learning as social science, arts, commerce, science and technical courses.
• The aims of Indian education system are imparting knowledge and skills to the students when they complete the course.
5 http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/ictlip/module2/Lesson1.ppt 6 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=14934&dict=CALD&topic=types-of-school 7 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/college 8 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/college
20
1.6 Need for the Study
There is a great belief in the community of librarians that Open Source Movement would significantly increase the level of automation in libraries by bringing the open standards and interoperability features for resource sharing (Schlumpf, 1999). The interest in OSS is because of the obvious reason that they are available and implementable with no cost/very less cost. However, the works referred during the literature study on OSILS products by Chudnov (1999), Breeding (2002a), Sonker & Jayakanth (2003), Kumar (2005), Hedges (2005), Hyman & Walker (2008), Breeding (2009a) and Hopkinson (2009) reveals that librarians have their own apprehensions about many issues in implementing the open source software. They are:
1. The purpose of library automation using Open Source Software.
2. Guidelines for selection of suitable ILS product to meet the requirements. 3. Sustainability of the OSILS product.
4. In-house technical environment and support required for maintaining the OSS. 5. The support available from the developers and user community of OSS. 6. Standards followed by the OSILS.
7. Availability of tools and techniques for local customization in OSILS. 8. Interoperability issues.
9. Suitability of OSILS products to the requirements. 10.Prerequisites for implementing OSILS.
The above issues are not addressed in a comprehensive manner in the earlier studies as reflected in the literature study. As indicated by Balnaves (2008) and Breeding (2009a) libraries are in need of information about the selection process and suitable framework to adopt OSILS products. The literature study made by researcher revealed that such attempts are not seen in the Indian context. In the international scenario, the product reviews and the discussion on the features of OSILS are available, but, it is not in the form of detailed evaluation nor can be guiding source for selection and adoption of OSILS for libraries. This need has been understood by the researcher based on the practical experience; the discussion had in the workshops, which the researcher has conducted on OSILS and he attended; and, in other forums. With this understanding and appropriateness to the current situation, the researcher has proposed to take up a test of conducting a detailed research study to analyze the OSILS products with the requirements of the Indian college libraries.
21
1.7 Significance of the Study
There are various reasons like, working with minimum manpower, assessment and accreditation procedures, etc., which had made the librarians to automate their libraries. Even though there are several commercial library automation packages available, the costs of these packages are beyond the reach of most of the libraries especially the school and college libraries in India. Even if a library can afford a commercial library automation package, it becomes difficult for a library to sustain the commercial package pertaining to the recurring cost involved by way of maintenance and the upgradation to the newer versions (Haravu, 2004). An alternative to commercial package is Freeware and Open Source Software. The college libraries in India, however, are lagging behind in awareness and the suitability of the OSILS products (Kumar, 2005). The researcher has attempted to study the OSILS with the current situation of Indian college libraries. The study has analyzed the requirements of Indian college libraries and mapped the performance of the identified OSILS to present their suitability.
1.8 Objectives of the Study
The study was intended to analyze the requirements of Indian college libraries with the performance of the identified OSILS to present the suitability. With the understanding of the current situation and the needs, the researcher has attempted to study the OSILS products against the requirements of the Indian college libraries. This analytical study was intended to answer the following proposed objectives:
• To study the development of Open Source Software (OSS) with special reference to libraries.
• To study the features of Open Source Integrated Library Systems (OSILS) from the Indian college library perspective.
• To examine the suitability of OSS for library automation in Indian college libraries.
The researcher with the passion for the open source software and with the practical experience in deployment of OSILS product in his parent institute, has examined - the concept, development and current status of OSILS; the requirements of ILS products
22 from Indian college libraries perspective; and, the suitability of OSILS products to Indian college libraries. This study has made an analytical approach to study the condition of products (OSILS) against the expectations of the consumers (requirements of Indian college libraries). This demanded the mapping of the requirements (importance) to the performance of OSILS products. Further, the researcher has shared his learning and the experience gained during the course of research on - understanding the requirements of Indian college libraries in an ILS, the evaluation of the OSILS products, add-on features expected, lacunae in current OSILS products, developments in-demand, etc., which he feels will add value as the source of information for any future research which will be carried out in this area.
1.9 Scope and Limitations of the Study
a. The study focuses only Open Source Software products. Opinions, if any, expressed about the commercial software in this study, are from the sources collected in the literature review. Such opinions are supported by appropriate citations. The prime reasons for the exclusion of the commercial software from the scope of this research study are as follows:
i. The present research study being a single person project, will be unwieldy to cover all kinds of software i.e., commercial, freeware, homegrown and open source software.
ii. Few studies on the commercial and home grown software(s) have been found in the literature of Harinarayana (1995), Rao & Abideen (1999), Hutchinson (2002), Salter (2003), Waller (2003), Corrado (2004), Aberdour (2007) and Breeding (2008).
b. OSILS has been the emphasis of this study. Owing to the paucity of time and facilities available to the researcher, the study has considered those OSILS that covers partially or fully – the thrust areas of Indian college libraries like
Acquisitions, Cataloguing, Serials Control, Circulation, OPAC and Viability Indicators.
c. The obvious reason for the infancy situation of Indian college libraries automation work is the lack of financial, technical and manpower support. College libraries have been looking towards OSILS as an alternative to the commercial products, but are apprehensive about their suitability. Hence, only
23 those OSILS, which respond to the basic requirements of Indian college libraries, have been considered for study in the current research project.
d. India is a geographically huge country. Collecting information from college libraries across the country involves substantial financial support. As the current study is not a funded project, it would be a difficult proposition for the researcher to travel and collect the data from all over the country. Thus the data collection to understand the requirements of Indian college libraries in ILS has been limited to the selected colleges within Mysore, which are automated using comprehensive ILS products. However, this limitation may not affect the outcome of the study, as by and large the college libraries all over India are working under similar constraints and prospects.
1.10 Methodology
The research methodology has been dealt as a separate chapter. Chapter 4 of this report explains the method, module, statistical tools and strategy adopted to form the methodology of the research.
1.11 Chapterization
The thesis has been presented in the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter introduces the subject of integrated library systems, open source software and open source integrated library systems. It serves as a framework for the later chapters. This chapter attempts to establish the need for comprehensive study of OSILS pertaining to Indian college library situation. The objectives, scope and limitations of the study are specified. The present chapter concludes with a brief sketch of the chapterization of the thesis.
Chapter 2: OSS and Libraries: A Literature Review
This chapter presents a brief review of the literature published relating to the Open Source Software history and development, OSS for libraries, ILS – concepts and developments, OSILS scenario and the study carried out in the evaluation of OSILS. The literature has been analyzed with suitable
24 categorization. The growth and the developments are presented with suitable graphs and charts.
Chapter 3: Open Source Integrated Library Systems (OSILS): An Overview
An attempt is made in this chapter to present an overview about the history, development and the condition of OSILS. The researcher has presented the OSILS products with features pertaining to age, versions, developers, prerequisites and the web presence. This chapter further details about the OSILS scenario in India.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
This chapter explains the methodology followed in this research project in detail. This chapter introduces briefly the models available for the evaluation of Open Source Products and adopting a suitable model for the current study. The researcher has provided an overview on the statistical methodology adopted for the study of the identified OSILS players for evaluation.
Chapter 5: Quick Assessment of OSILS Products
Having had a close acquaintance with the various OSILS products, the aspects of integrated library system and the methodology, in the previous chapters, the researcher has attempted to analyze nine identified open source ILS products, in this chapter. This study is basically an evaluative one. The evaluation is relative in nature, i.e., determining the level of performance of OSILS on various aspects or criteria identified for the study. This quick assessment is made to shortlist the eligible candidates to meet the requirements of Indian college libraries, for detailed assessment.
Chapter 6: Detailed Assessment of OSILS Products
This chapter presents the evaluation exercises on four OSILS products:
Evergreen, Koha, NewGenLib and PMBILS, which were shortlisted from the quick assessment. These four OSILS products are evaluated against a detailed list of criteria organized under following modules: Acquisitions, Serials Control, Technical Processing, Circulation, OPAC (Online Public Access Catalogue) and Viability Indicators.
25
Chapter 7: Quadrant Analysis of OSILS Products
The exercise performed in the detailed assessment provides the ‘scores’ which indicate the performance of OSILS products against the listed requirements of the Indian college libraries. However, the scores are not in directive manner to the selector or the librarian to select a suitable OSILS product which can meet his requirements. To overcome this, the researcher has attempted to present the Business Readiness Rating using the quadrant analysis/IPA in this chapter. The researcher has presented the requirements using the Category Map and the performance of OSILS in the form of Performance Map.
Chapter 8: Conclusion
The researcher has presented the research findings for the research questions posed in the form of objectives. The discussion on other outcomes pertaining to OSILS and the situation of Indian college libraries are presented. Further, the areas of auxiliary study, the understanding of the research and the suggestions are presented in descriptive manner.
