Library Technology Guides

What is the average number of years a library stays with an automated library system before changing to a system from another vendor? The figure, which is based or limited data but supported by anecdotal evidence, is more than nine years. Although most libraries undertake a major hardware upgrade after four or five years, only 20% change vendors at that time. The timing may be triggered by the need to spend money on hardware, but the change of vendor reflects either poor support by the current vendor or the availability of a system that better meets the needs of the library. Some 50% purchase not only the hardware upgrade but also buy additional modules or user licenses from the current vendor.

In the past three years, a change In vendor has also meant a change from a hierarchical system to a client/server system. The leading reason for purchasing from a vendor other than the current one has apparently been that the current vendor's client/server product was not complete. Nearly two-thirds of the libraries that have gone from a hierarchical system to a client/server system, however, have chosen to go to the client/server product of the current vendor, for example DRA Classic to Taos, epixtech Dynix to Horizon, Gaylord Galaxy to Polaris, VTLS 9x to Virtua.

About 30% of libraries stay with a vendor year after year, spending only a minimal amount for maintenance and minor upgrades. They often are using a release older than the current one because they lack the memory and disk storage to take advantage of enhancements.

Vendors that have been in the top five in sales for several years, and that can afford vigorous development programs, tend to keep a majority of their customers for 10 years or more. The vendors with weak sales and limited product enhancements lose their customers in large numbers within five years.

Public libraries with independent boards and privately supported academic libraries are more likely to change vendors than those that are subject to low bid requirements. A library's current vendor usually extends a credit for all existing software, therefore, it usually is the low bidder. If its bid is to be set aside In an environment with stringent bidding laws, it has to be done on the basis of functionality or inadequate past support.

DRA has announced that several sites have now gone live with the general release of version 1.0 of Taos. Both Unix and Windows NT versions have been deployed. Most of the sites have the cataloging, circulation, serials, and patron access catalog modules. Those that have ordered the acquisitions module are expected to receive it in December 2000. Patron self-charging and several other applications are still in development. Z39.50 client/ server and UNICODE are integral parts of the Taos design. The Safari client and server online reporting product is available as an option.

Now that Taos is nearing completion, DRA is bidding it in response to RPPs except when a client expresses a specific preference for one of its other systems.

[Contact: Data Research Associates, Inc. 1276 N. Warson Road, St. Louis, MO 63132 1806; telephone: 800-325-0888 or 314-432-1100; fax: 314-993-8927; Web: www.dra.com]

EOSi's latest release of its Q Series automated library system incorporates Z39.50 for the first time, allowing the system to be linked with those of other libraries. The vendor has implemented Version 3.0 of the standard. It also supports the Bath Profile at level 1. (See related article in this issue.) Q Series Version 3.0 also features additional system security setup options.

The vendor has recently relocated its offices, so please note the contact information below.

[Contact: EOSi, 2382 Faraday Ave., #350, Carlsbad, CA 92008; telephone: 800-876-5484; fax: 760-431-8448; Web: www.eosintl.com]

epixtech and IJRA have signed a letter of understanding for the development and joint marketing of an interface between epixtech's Universal Resource Sharing Application (URSA) and URNs proprietary library automation software.

The agreement will achieve one of epixtech's goals, the sale of its products outside its regular customer base. URSA, an interlibrary loan product, is one of several products designed to work both with epixtech's own systems and those of other vendors. The agreement will dive DRA more time to complete Taos while meeting contractual obligations to customers to provide interlibrary loan support. That time is particularly critical in the case of more than 100 Ohio school libraries with DRA systems.

URSA has four major elements:

• Virtual catalog—a catalog that can be simultaneously searched across different vendors automated library systems using Z39.50.
• Patron authentication—a feature that accesses a patron's local library system to determine eligibility for service.
• ILL management—the automation of the request and loan processing, with tracking through the entire life cycle of the loan.
• Extended circulation—the ability to interact with automated library systems to place holds, create and delete temporary records at the borrowing library, and handle check-out and check-in at the lending library.

URSA was originally created by CPS Systems Inc., an Australian company. It is being used as the statewide resource sharing system in Maryland and as the first multlvendor Web-based “extended circulation system” at the North Bay (Calif) Cooperative Library System. eplxtech acquired URSA in 1999.

Work is underway to make URSA conform to the lnternatiànal interlibrary loan standards, ISO 10160-61. There also are plans to bring it into conformity with the Circulation Interface Protocol now being completed by the National Information Standards Organization.

[Contact: epixtech, inc., 400 W. 5050 North, Provo, UT 84604-5650; telephone: 801-223- 5200 or 800-223-5413; fax: 801-223-5202; Web: /www.eplxtech.com.]

The first release of Horizon with Sunrise is scheduled for August 2000. It will be numbered 6.0 because it is the successor product to Horizon. The “Sunrise” refers to the incorporation of all the functionality of Dynix, which is not already in Horizon. The release will include much of the cataloging, circulation, and patron access catalog functionality. Serials and acquisitions are to follow.

One of the most significant enhancements that does not come from Dynix Is iPAC, a new Web-based patron access catalog. Although it is built on an HTML foundation, so any Web browser can be used, it includes a search engine that offers advanced Boolean and cross-index searching, relevancy ranking of search results, integration with ILL services, and support for Z39.50 searching. It also includes self-services such as placing holds, renewals, and review of fines or fees.

UNICODE Is also supported in the new release. It was previously available to epixtech's Asian customers.

[Contact: eplxtech, inc., 400 W. 5050 North, Provo, UT 84604-5650; telephone: 801-223-5200 or 800-223-5413; fax: 801-223-5202; Web:www.epixtech.com]

More than six months after entering into negotiation with SUNY, the State University of New York, Ex Libris has a signed contract in hand. Concurrent with the negotiations, Ex Libris opened an East Coast office to support the project and other customers In the northeast.

SUNY is a unified system of public higher education institutions with 64 campuses serving nearly 400,000 students. The exact number of systems has not been announced, but all will be linked to create a virtual union catalog.

Ex Libris hopes to complete negotiations with CUNY, the City University of New York, in the near future. If successful, Ex Libris will serve almost all publicly supported academic institutions in the state.

Ex Libris has also announced that Beta testing of its SFX context-sensitive reference linking product is underway at five sites. The institutions (California Institute of Technology, Harvard University Library, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Vanderbilt University) are making their electronic collections interoperable with SFX. The idea is not only to make searching easier by providing sets of customized links to an extensive collection of information resources and services, but also to provide a uniform and vendor-independent measure of use. In effect, libraries can combine electronic resources from several different systems to function as a cohesive resource.

General release Is planned for fail. The product can be operated independently of other Ex Libris products.

[Contact: Ex Libris (USA) Inc.; telephone: 877-527-1689(toll free); fax: 773-404-5601; Web: www.exlibris-usa.com.]

Several clients say they are disappointed that Innovative Interfaces does not offer imaging support. One client, however, is building an Image file of up to 10,000 historical photographs using Innovative's Millennium system.

Innovative offers two products. The first is designated “external image linking.” It is similar to most other vendors' links from a bibliographic record on the automated library system to an image on a separate server. The second is designated “local image linking.” It includes the ability to link to external images, but also has the ability to scan or input an Image, store a thumbnail of the image, and store the full image locally. Both products can work with electronic reserves.

A library can scan or import an image in a variety of formats: BMP, TIF, GIF, and JPEG. The Images are saved in a TIFF format. The advantage of TIFF is that it uses a loss-less compression scheme, minimizing loss or distortion of the image. Other storage options are being considered.

The thumbnail, if included to permit a quick glimpse before retrieving the TIFF image, is stored as a JPEG Image because it can be directly accessed by a browser. A TIFF image cannot be displayed directly, but requires a TIFF viewer Java applet to view it, which increases the time to load the image.

Almost all vendors provide external image support. Several offer local image support, but few have extensively promoted the functionality because demand has been low until recently. One vendor, which does not offer local image support, Is prepared to develop it within six months, as soon as a customer requires it.

[Contact: Innovative Interfaces, Inc., 5850 Shellmound Way, Emeryville, CA 94608: telephone: 800-878-6600; Web: www.iii.com]

The Library Corp., the vendor that has experienced success with Library.Solution for small- to mid-size libraries, has extended its reach to large libraries by purchasing CARL Corp. CARL's customers include Atlanta- -Fulton Public Library, Chicago Public Library, Denver Public Library, Los Angeles Public Library, and the Phoenix Public Library.

Company representatives say they intend to continue both products, rather than consolidate them into one. TLC hopes to strengthen CARL with its financial resources and marketing/sales skills.

TLC is also extending its reach to small libraries it has agreed to a joint venture with CASPR Library Systems to broaden distribution of that company's recently introduced Library.Com, a product that is entirely Web-based at www.librarycom.com. In a related move to serve small libraries, TLC announced the introduction of CATNOW!, a Web-based cataloging system for inexperienced catalogers who need user-friendly screens without complex cataloging information. The prompts seek basic information that can be formatted to search against MARC records.

Although TLC does have a presence In Asia, Its expansion strategy focuses mainly on North America. The three products TLC now offers should make the company a candidate to supply virtually any one of the more than 100,000 libraries of North America.

[Contact: TLC; telephone: 800-624-0559; Web: www.TLCdelivers.com.]

VTLS's Virtua screens can now be customized to a greater degree than ever. The Chameleon Gateway product now lets a library customize the entire look and feel of the user interface using “skin” technology. The options include an academic interface and a child-friendly interface, among others. Options are available to customize the logo and title of the gateway, customize the background color, add graphics, customize the text of the buttons and labels, limit the catalogs viewed by patrons, and change the language in which the library catalog is viewed. Eight language translations are available, but more are planned.

VTLS also announced it has 28 signed contracts for Virtua, 35% of them from “new name” clients. Twenty-eight of the systems have been installed, including 10 in North America.

[Contact: VTLS, Inc., 1701 Kraft Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24060; telephone: 800-468-8857 or 540-557-1200; fax: 540-557-1210; Web: www.vtls.com]

ISO, the International Organization for Standards, has approved the Bath Profile as an IRP (internationally registered profile). The IRP builds on ISO Z39.50—the international label for what is commonly designated Z39.50—by detailing the level of conformity that vendors should achieve for libraries to realize true interoperability.

Within any standard there are implementation options. When software developers select different options to implement or interpret a standard differently in their system, users can receive many false hits or, conversely, may not retrieve suitable records. A profile provides a mechanism for interpreting and implementing a standard in the same way.

In August 1999, a group met in Bath, United Kingdom, to discuss possible improvements to 239.50. Rather than rewriting the standard, they decided to focus on vendor implementation of the standard. The profile they developed at the Bath meeting, and subsequent ones, does the following:

• Defines a core set of searches required for the basic search and retrieval mechanism needed by library users when interacting with library catalogs and other electronic resources.
• Defines search and retrieval requirements to provide bibliographic and holdings information adequate to identify a library's holdings.
• Defines searches and retrieval mechanisms to address cross-domain information retrieval (for example, a library catalog and a museum catalog or a library catalog and online reference service).

The hope is that vendors will adopt the Bath Profile as the specifications for implementing Z39.50 and that libraries will require Bath Profile conformity. If that happens, the full potential of Z39.50 can be realized. Searching and retrieving information from multiple databases will be easier and search results will be more accurate.

Several vendors are reviewing the profile to see what modifications will have to be made to their implementations of Z39.50 to meet the specifications of the profile. Sirsi and EOSi have already announced that their client/server products conform to the Bath Profile.

Libraries may include conformity to the Bath Profile in their RFPs as a desirable feature, but not as a mandatory one. As partial conformity is a possibility, a library should ask a vendor to detail the ways in which its product conforms.

The National Library of Canada is the maintenance agency for the Bath Profile, but the most complete source of information is at www.ukoln.ac.uk/interop-focus/bath.

Several vendors of automated library systems have announced ASP solutions, among them DRA, epixtech, Ex Libris, Gaylord, and TLC. The acronym stands for application service provider. The “solution” is to offer libraries that do not want to own hardware and software the opportunity to use the facilities of the vendor for an annual fee, based on the modules used and the number of concurrent users supported.

The idea is hardly new. Gaylord was offering the service as early as the mid-70s, but it limited the functionality to circulation and used a distributed approach that stored most transactions locally during the day and uploaded them to the central site at night. Several other vendors have tried the service, but none found it profitable because it either involved placing computer facilities around the country or incurring high telecommunication costs.

Many believe the Internet is the key to eliminating the cost of telecommunication. If the library is served by a reliable tier-one ISP, response times may be good enough to handle transactions online in real time against a computer located far from the library. This setup also allows the vendor to co-locate a number of machines, reducing the cost of system operation.

In the past, the libraries most interested in outsourcing have been small and could not realize the economies of scale of larger facilities or could not retain qualified staff to manage and operate their systems. Small libraries typically require two to 30 user licenses.

Libraries that choose to investigate the ASP solution should also consider joining a consortium of nearby libraries. The cost of participating in a consortium may be lower, not because a consortium is more efficient than a vendor, but because many consortia have received grant funds for the initial purchase of their systems. Their fees reflect only ongoing costs. Note that although vendors will agree to lock-in fees for a multiyear period, most consortia will not agree to a cap on future increases. When a consortium has not received grant funds and has purchased hardware at full price or minimal discount, it commonly charges higher fees than a vendor offering an ASP solution.

Most consortia offer many services, including cooperative collection development, resource sharing protocols, delivery service, and continuing education. If a library is not interested in these options, the difference becomes more a matter of cost.

Also evaluate the governance structure of the consortium. Is the library purchasing a service from a service bureau or is it a voting participant in a cooperative undertaking? If the latter, how compatible are the interests of the participants? More than one consortium has failed because a majority imposed a decision on a minority.

Superior price/performance and product quality are not the only reasons why most vendors in the library automation industry are bidding Sun servers. A survey of 356 value-added retailers by CRN a trade publication, determined that Sun and Hewlett-Packard were virtually tied for price/performance and product quality, and substantially better than IBM for price/performance but Sun was ranked substantially higher for profitability and profit margins: 5.3 on a scale of 7 versus 4.8 each for Hewlett-Packard and IBM. The profit margins on Sun platforms is particularly good on the larger servers, models numbered 3000 through 6500.

When negotiating a contract for a system, keep in mind the vendor has a little more margin on a system configured on a Sun platform than on one with HP or IBM and, therefore, may be able to offer a better deal on that platform.

Only a few months after becoming Bibliostat.com, the vendor of the Bibliostat family of products has become the LibraryPlace.com. The new company is broadening its product line to include those of Electronic Business and Information Services, a unit of Baker & Taylor, Inc. B&T has an equity position in the new company, one which it hopes to reduce as more companies agree to join the new multiproduct sales organization. Paul Sybrowski, formerly of Dynix, Ameritech Library Services, and Bibliostat.com, is the chief executive.

[Contact: theLlbraryPlace.oom, 250 W. Center St., #300, Provo, UT 84601: telephone: 800-427-0028; Web: www.thelibraryplace.com)

The migration of libraries to the new version of FirstSearch is scheduled to be completed before the end of August. The new FirstSearch, which has been available to some libraries for nearly a year, is a Web-based online reference service—available via English, French, and Spanish interfaces—that provides access to 84 databases and nearly 6 million full-text articles in many subjects—the latter encompassing the 2,500 electronic journal titles from the Electronic Collections Online Service. There also Is easy access to the OCLC ILL service.

WorldCat, the union database of bibliographic records of OCLC's participating libraries, now has more than 44 million bibliographic records in it.

Recent enhancements to the new FirstSearch include a link to a library's Web-based patron access catalog for information about local holdings and the option to jump from the home screen directly to an advanced search screen in a specific database.

A library does not have to be an OCLC cataloging or ILL participant to use FirstSearch.

[Contact: OCLC; telephone: 800-848-5878; fax: 614-764-6096; e-mail: oclc@oclc.org; Web: www.oclc.org]

Despite President Clinton's signature on June 30 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, it may be some time before electronic signatures become commonplace. The problem is a lack of technology standards that assure interoperability among the various products and services. In the absence of standards, many major banks have formed a consortium to provide an infrastructure for their own use, but most businesses and organizations will have to wait for two or three years.

This summer's drop in PC prices has been less than expected, possibly because sales of high-end Pentium III machines with 800 or 733 MHz processors have been disappointing, but the rule-of-thumb that the best price/ performance is at the third-tier continues to work. The Pentium III with a 700 MHz processor is the best deal for most libraries. Dell and Compaq are selling Pentium 111/700 systems at under $1,200, at least $800 less than the III/800 systems, and at least $500 less than the 111/733 systems. The typical Pentium rn/700 is configured with 64 MB of memory (up to at least 768), 10 GB hard drive, 48x CD-ROM drive, 17-inch monitor, sound card and speakers, 10/100 network interface card, MS Office 2000 Small Business, and a three-year warranty.

U. S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has put a hold on implementation of his entire June 7 final judgment, including the breakup plan and the interim conduct restrictions that were to take effect on September 5, pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Now the question is whether the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal or refuse, thus turning the case over to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, it is due to begin its next session in October 2000. A decision would then be forthcoming the following spring, possibly as late as June 2001.

Microsoft is hoping the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case because it has previously had favorable rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals. DOJ prefers a hearing by the Supreme Court because it wishes to avoid the extended process of going to an intermediate court and then the Supreme Court.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade group that includes many of Microsoft's competitors, has expressed its disappointment over the delay in imposing the conduct restrictions because Microsoft will be unfettered in its product plans and business practices until all legal appeals are exhausted.