NISO RP-6-2012 RFID in U S Libraries.pdf

1、 NISO RP-6-2012 RFID in U.S. Libraries March 2012 A Recommended Practice of the National Information Standards Organization Prepared by the NISO RFID Revision Working Group About NISO Recommended Practices A NISO Recommended Practice is a recommended “best practice“ or “guideline“ for methods, mater

2、ials, or practices in order to give guidance to the user. Such documents usually represent a leading edge, exceptional model, or proven industry practice. All elements of Recommended Practices are discretionary and may be used as stated or modified by the user to meet specific needs. This recommende

3、d practice may be revised or withdrawn at any time. For current information on the status of this publication contact the NISO office or visit the NISO website (www.niso.org). Published by National Information Standards Organization (NISO) One North Charles Street, Suite 1905 Baltimore, MD 21201 www

4、.niso.org Copyright 2012 by the National Information Standards Organization All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. For noncommercial purposes only, this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writi

5、ng from the publisher, provided it is reproduced accurately, the source of the material is identified, and the NISO copyright status is acknowledged. All inquiries regarding translations into other languages or commercial reproduction or distribution should be addressed to: NISO, One North Charles S

6、treet, Suite 1905, Baltimore, MD 21201. ISBN (13): 978-1-937522-02-5 RFID in U.S. Libraries i Table of Contents Foreword . iv Section 1: Use of RFID in Libraries 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Tagging in Libraries 1 1.3 Self Check-Out . 2 1.4 Check-In, Including Manual, Conveyor, and Sorting Systems. 2 1.5 In

7、ventory Systems 3 1.6 Support for Interlibrary Loan (ILL) 3 1.7 RFID Standards in Libraries . 3 Section 2: NISO Data Model and U. S. Profile for ISO 28560-2 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.1.1 Rationale for the Choice of ISO 28560-2 5 2.1.2 Selection of ISO 28560-2 over ISO 28560-3 6 2.2 Data Objects 6 2.2.1

8、 Advantages of Looking Up Data in the ILS . 7 2.2.2 Advantages of Storing Data on the Tag 7 2.3 Mandatory and Optional Data Objects . 7 2.4 Locked vs. Unlocked 8 2.4.1 Locking Pros and Cons . 8 2.4.1.1 Advantages . 8 2.4.1.2 Disadvantages . 8 2.5 U.S. Profile for ISO 28560 RFID in U. S. Libraries .

9、9 2.5.1 Summary . 9 2.5.2 Primary Item Identifier . 11 2.5.3 Tag Content Key (also called OID Index) . 12 2.5.4 Owner Library/Institution . 12 2.5.5 Set Information (also called multi-part indicator) 13 2.5.6 Type of Usage . 14 2.5.7 Shelf Location . 14 2.5.8 ONIX Media Format 15 2.5.9 MARC Media Fo

10、rmat 15 2.5.10 Supplier Identifier 15 2.5.11 Order Number . 15 2.5.12 ILL Borrowing Institution . 16 2.5.13 ILL Borrowing Transaction Number 16 2.5.14 GS1 Identifier 17 2.5.15 Alternative Unique Item Identifier 18 2.5.16 Local Data A 18 2.5.17 Local Data B 18 2.5.18 Title 18 2.5.19 Product Identifie

11、r (local) 18 2.5.20 Media Format (other) 19 2.5.21 Supply Chain Stage 19 2.5.22 Supplier Invoice Number . 20 RFID in U.S. Libraries ii 2.5.23 Alternate Item Identifier . 20 2.5.24 Alternative Owner Institution . 20 2.5.25 Subsidiary of an Owner Institution 21 2.5.26 Alternative ILL Borrowing Institu

12、tion . 21 2.5.27 Local Data C . 21 2.6 Relative OID . 21 2.7 Data Format (DSFID) Declaration 22 2.8 Encoding 22 2.9 Use of Primary IDs and Supply Chain Stages . 23 Section 3: Security 24 3.1 RFID Security for Libraries . 24 3.2 Application Family Identifier (AFI) 24 3.2.1 AFI Codes and Interoperabil

13、ity . 25 3.2.2 AFI Locking . 25 3.2.3 Interlibrary Loan Situations . 25 3.3 Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS) . 25 3.4 Virtual Deactivation (Database Look-Up) . 26 3.5 Recommendations for Security 26 3.6 Potential Interference with Non-Library RFID Applications 27 Section 4: Library Migration to

14、 ISO Standard Tags 28 4.1 Introduction 28 4.2 Compatibility . 29 4.3 Role of RFID Vendor 30 4.4 Role of Integrated Library System Vendor . 30 4.5 Suggested Migration Process 30 4.5.1 Migration Considerations 30 4.5.2 On-the-fly Migration. 31 4.5.3 Systematic Migration . 31 4.6 Questions for RFID Ven

15、dors 32 Section 5: The Book Supply Chain: The Value of Standardization 33 5.1 Introduction 33 5.2 Distributors and RFID Tag Applications . 33 Section 6: Privacy 36 6.1 Privacy Issues 36 6.2 ALA Resolution on RFID Technology and Privacy 36 6.3 ALA Guidelines on Privacy and Confidentiality in RFID 37

16、6.4 Implementing the NISO RFID Recommendations and ALA RFID Policy 38 RFID in U.S. Libraries iii Section 7: Vandalism 39 7.1 Introduction 39 7.2 Modification of Security Data . 39 7.3 Modification of Tag Contents . 39 7.4 RFID Viruses 39 7.5 Intentional Detuning of the Tag 40 7.6 Physical Defacing o

17、r Removal of the Tag 40 7.7 Moving Forward . 40 Appendix A: RFID Technology Basics 41 Appendix B: Interoperability Characteristics . 47 Appendix C: UHF RFID in Libraries . 50 Appendix D: Encoding Data on the RFID Tag 52 Glossary of Acronyms 68 Bibliography 69 RFID in U.S. Libraries iv Foreword NISO

18、RFID Revision Working Group Charge The original NISO RFID Working Group was formed in 2006 to focus on the use and implementation of radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies in U.S. libraries. In January 2008, NISO formally published the Recommended Practice, RFID in U.S. Libraries (NISO R

19、P-6-2008). Since that time, there have been new developments with regard to RFID implementation in the larger book industry as well as in other countries, including the U.K., Denmark, the Netherlands, and Australia. After the publication of NISO RP-6-2008, the International Organization for Standard

20、ization (ISO) Working Group on RFID in Libraries (ISO TC46/SC4/WG11) produced a three-part standard (ISO 28560) governing the encoding of data on RFID tags for item management in libraries. This work has resulted in ambiguities between the original NISO publication and the final ISO publications. On

21、e of the goals of the NISO RFID Revision Working Group is to eliminate these ambiguities. This revision includes input from RFID hardware manufacturers, solution providers (software and integration), library RFID users, distributors and processors, and related organizations. This revision to the 200

22、8 Recommended Practice was necessary to bring the advice from NISO in line with international standardization efforts. It will also provide United States implementers of RFID tags in libraries sufficient guidance to conform to the ISO work. Among the goals of this revision and the original document

23、were the following: To review existing RFID standards, assess the applicability of this technology in U.S. libraries and across the book publishing supply chain, and promote the use of RFID where appropriate. To examine and assess privacy concerns associated with the adoption of RFID technologies in

24、 libraries. To investigate the way RFID may be used for the circulation or sale of books and other media in the United States and make recommendations. To focus on security and data models for RFID tags, along with issues of interoperability and privacy. To create a set of recommendations for librar

25、ies with regard to a tag data model and other issues, with the specific goals for this revision of: a. Reviewing and updating information in the original document. b. Ensuring conformance between the approved ISO standard and the NISO recommended practice. c. Creating a set of recommendations for a

26、U.S. data model standard. d. Providing specific examples to make implementation easier for manufacturers and libraries. Outcomes The NISO RFID Revision Working Group document recommends a set of practices and procedures to ensure interoperability among U.S. RFID implementations. All sections of the

27、original 2008 document have been reviewed and updated to reflect changes in practices for protection of personal privacy, support advanced functionality, facilitate security, protect against vandalism, and allow the RFID tag to be used in the entire lifecycle of the book and other library materials.

28、 RFID in U.S. Libraries v This Recommended Practice includes: 1. A checklist (for libraries and vendors) that can be used to evaluate the degree of conformance with the ISO 28560. This checklist is available at http:/biblstandard.dk/rfid/docs/conformance_28560-2.pdf 2. A set of recommend practices a

29、nd procedures to ensure interoperability among U.S. RFID implementations. 3. A list of suggestions to reduce the impact of migrating from non-conforming systems to conforming systems or running with “mixed” tag systems (older tags and newer conforming tags). These NISO recommendations for best pract

30、ices promote procedures that: a. Allow an RFID tag to be installed at the earliest point in the lifecycle of the book and used throughout its lifecycle from publisher/printer to distributor, jobber, library (shelving, circulating, sorting, re-shelving, inventory, and theft deterrence), and interlibr

31、ary loan, and then on to secondary markets such as secondhand books, returned books, and discarded/recycled books. b. Allow for true interoperability among libraries; that is, a tag in one library can be used seamlessly by another, even if they have different suppliers for tags, hardware, and softwa

32、re. c. Protect the personal privacy of individuals while supporting the functions that allow users to reap the benefits of this technology. d. Permit the extension of these standards and procedures for global interoperability. e. Remain relevant and functional with evolving technologies. Early RFID

33、implementers are at considerable risk because of the lack of interoperability of proprietary vendor systems. As RFID providers and libraries adopt tags with the data model recommended in this recommended practice, true interoperability that allows libraries to procure the tags, hardware, and softwar

34、e from independent providers and distributors to use with all tags can become a reality. The data model outlined in this document is an essential first step. This model is a key precursor to a world in which a library can procure tags from different vendors, merge collections containing tags from di

35、fferent vendors, and, for the purposes of interlibrary loan, read the tags on items belonging to other libraries. Even with a data model, there are other barriers to interoperability and plug-and-play capabilities. They include: a. Vendor-specific encrypting and encoding of the data. b. Proprietary

36、security functions, which are an advantage when considering hackers, thieves, etc., but are a detriment to interoperability (see Section 3). c. Software or firmware that is system dependent and can only be used with specific tags. The ideal is that RFID tags compliant with the data model can be usab

37、le by other RFID vendors. With standards recommended in this document, interoperability and the ability to embed tags into books at manufacture is within reach. For libraries already heavily invested in RFID, Section 4 addresses issues related to migration or upgrading of tags to be compliant with t

38、he data model. In this report, The NISO RFID Working Group is providing its best insights into these complex issues and a possible way forward. RFID in U.S. Libraries vi NISO Topic Committee Members The Content and Collection Management (CCM) Topic Committee had the following members at the time it

39、approved this Recommended Practice: Julia Blixrud Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Eva Bolkovac Yale University Library Lettie Conrad SAGE Publications Diane Hillmann Syracuse University Marjorie Hlava National Federation of Advanced Information Services (NFAIS) Rebecca Kennison Columbia Univ

40、ersity Betty Landesman NIH Library Rice Majors University of Colorado at Boulder Dorothea Salo University of Wisconsin, Madison Ken Wells Innovative Interfaces, Inc. NISO RFID Revision Working Group Members The following individuals served on the NISO RFID Revision Working Group, which developed and

41、 approved this Recommended Practice: Livia Bitner Baker placement of the self-check stations near to but not immediately adjacent to the staffed circulation desk; small footprints to allow for multiple station placement; encouragement and promotion by staff; friendly loan and fines policies; and sel

42、f pick-up of items on hold. Examples of user-friendly loan and fine policies might include allowing patrons to pay fines at the self check-out station using a credit card, debit account, or PayPal, or increasing the threshold at which self check-out use is blocked due to fines. Due to concerns regar

43、ding decreased read range on metallic content materials, some libraries add various alternative security measures to those materials, which may or may not affect self-check rates. Generic locking cases require staff intervention. Some vendors offer integrated self-check lock boxes that may be automa

44、tically unlocked once checked out. The additional cost and usability factors of these measures, or those of a media jukebox, must be evaluated by each library. (For more on security issues, see Section 3.) 1.4 Check-In, Including Manual, Conveyor, and Sorting Systems Whether check-in takes place man

45、ually or via an automated process, RFID significantly streamlines the check-in of returned items. When check-in takes place manually, RFID also significantly reduces staff repetitive motions. Conveyor and sorting systems are becoming more prevalent in libraries with the advent of RFID technology. Th

46、e RFID reader is either mounted in a return chute or over/under a section of a conveyor belt. The item passes over or under an RFID readerlong enough to read the content on the tag, turn on the security, and communicate with the librarys ILS. The item is then sorted into bins or onto shelving carts

47、according to item type, location code, or other information. This is particularly valuable for sorting items on hold into specified bins. Systems typically have anywhere from three to fifteen bins or carts, though larger systems utilize a much larger number of bins. It should be understood that RFID

48、 return chutes without or with limited sorting capability will require manual intervention to perform accurately, for RFID in U.S. Libraries 3 example to sort for holds. Their main advantage would be in fast updating of patron records to allow checking out more of a limited collection and the abilit

49、y to provide check-in receipts automatically. Manual check-ins are made significantly easier, faster, and more ergonomically friendly with RFID because fewer fine motor movements are required to place an item on a reader than to read the barcode with a scanner. For those using multi-item processing, more books can be checked in at one time. Again, some mechanism for communicating with the ILS, whether it is NCIP, SIP2, web service, or proprietary API, is required to process transactions using data obtained via RFID. 1.5 Inventory Systems RFID technology can make such routine t