Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies Available online at www.ajms.co.

in
Volume1, Issue 5, December 2013
ISSN: 2321-8819

Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System

Sukumar Mandal1 and Amit Kumar Das2

1
JRF, Department of Library and Information Science,
The University of Burdwan,
Burdwan, India.
2
Librarian, Torkona Jagabandhu High School,
Burdwan, India.

Abstract: This paper attempts to design a framework for comparison of standards available in
public domain and implementation of standards facilities in open source ILSs. The framework is
mainly based on recommendations given by ILS-DI and IFLA Working Group on the area under
consideration. It takes into account global standards like metadata, interoperability, digital
preservation, web access and application programming interface etc. Two open source ILSs (from
the matured block of ILSs) namely NewGenLib and Koha are compared against a set of
parameters related with standards and drawn from global recommendations.

Keywords: Integrated library system, Standards, Digital Preservation and ILS software

Introduction Standards compliance needs to be considered from

Librarians have recognized and supported, long
before the dawn of computers, the need for
standards to aid in collection management, share
resources with other libraries, and improve access
for library patrons. The widespread use of
Integrated Library Systems (ILS), global
communications via the Internet, and growing
numbers of digital library initiatives have made the
need for compliance with standards more critical
than ever. Implementing information products and
systems that support standards can ensure that
libraries will be able to:
 integrate electronic content products from
multiple vendors;
 resource share on a wider geographic
scale, even globally;
the very start of planning for an information
system-during the needs assessment. This guide
identifies the current U.S. national and
international standards that are most important for
all types of libraries. Standards are selected on the
basis of Request for proposal and the
recommendations of NISO.
Software for Integrated Library System (ILS)
There are many open source ILSs available for use
in libraries of any type or size. The mature Library
management software includes Koha, NewGenLib,
Emilda, WEBLIS, Openbiblio, PMB and
PHPMyLibrary. However, as far as authority
control is concerned, two ILSs namely Koha and
NewGenLib, provide facilities for cataloguers as
well as users.

 participate in more cooperative programs

with other organizations, including ones
outside the library community;
 speed up the “time to market” of library
materials, i.e. the time to acquire, catalog,
process, and circulate an item;
 provide remote access to library services;
 reduce the need for user training;
 operate successfully with their parent
organization’s computing infrastructure;
 migrate cost effectively to newer systems;
and
 more easily adopt new technologies.
Koha
Koha is an integrated library management system
that was originally developed by Katipo
Communications Limited of Wellington, New
Zealand for the Horowhenua Library Trust (HLT),
a regional library system located in Levin near
Wellington. In 1999, Katipo proposed developing a
new system for HLT using open source tools
(PERL, MySQL and Apache) that would run under
Linux and use Telnet to communicate with the
branches. The software was in production on 3
January 2000, and released under the GPL for other
people to use in July 2000. Koha is essentially
based on LAMP architecture. The latest stable
release of Koha is 3.6 (as on 22.10.2011). Koha 3.x
versions support MARC 21 authority framework (a
great achievement) along with MARC 21

61
Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System
bibliographic format. It allows off-line import of
authority records (MARC formatted) through
PERL scripts. Koha provides a separate
cataloguing interface for different types of
authority records namely personal name, corporate
name, topical terms etc. It also allows authority file
searching from OPAC as well as from cataloguing
interface.
NewGenLib
NewGenLib is a fourth-generation ILS developed
by Verus Solutions Pvt Ltd. in collaboration with
Kesavan Institute of Information and Knowledge
Management in Hyderabad, India. It is an open
source ILS based on open source companion
software like PostGreSQL, Java Version 1.6 and
Tomcat Web server. The current release is 3.0.6.
NewGenLib provides a separate cataloguing
interface for different types of authority records
namely personal name, corporate name, topical
terms, meeting name etc except chronological term.
It means NewGenLib is as comprehensive as Koha
in managing authority data except a few difference.
In NewGenLib, cataloguers cannot view MARC 21
authority tags and/or subfields.
Standards in Integrated Library System (ILS)
Standards are essential in integrated library
management system of any type or size of a library.
There are lot of standards in automated and digital
library system. This research study explores the
four levels of standards including like metadata
standards, digital preservation, interoperability and
advanced level standards towards next level
automated and digital library systems.
Metadata Standards
Metadata is structured information that describes,
explains, locates, or otherwise makes it easier to
retrieve, use, or manage an information resource.
Metadata is often called data about data or
information about information. The term metadata
is used differently in different communities. Some
SL Metadata Parameter
1 Dublin Core ANSI/NISO Z39.85
2 Referenced metadata
3 Fifteen elements
4 XML syntax
5 HTML
6 Cross-domain searches
7 W3C
8 DCMI
Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013
use it to refer to machine understandable
information, while others use it only for records
that describe electronic resources. In the library
environment, metadata is commonly used for any
formal scheme of resource description, applying to
any type of object, digital or non-digital.
Traditional library cataloging is a form of
metadata; MARC 21 and the rule sets used with it,
such as AACR2, are metadata standards. Other
metadata schemes have been developed to describe
various types of textual and non-textual objects
including published books, electronic documents,
archival finding aids, art objects, educational and
training materials, and scientific datasets. There are
three main types of metadata:
 Descriptive metadata describes a resource
for purposes such as discovery and
identification. It can include elements such
as title, abstract, author, and keywords.
 Structural metadata indicates how
compound objects are put together, for
example, how pages are ordered to form
chapters.
 Administrative metadata provides
information to help manage a resource,
such as when and how it was created, file
type and other technical information, and
who can access it. There are several
subsets of administrative data; two that
sometimes are listed as separate metadata
types are: Rights management metadata,
which deals with intellectual property
rights, and Preservation metadata, which
contains information needed to archive
and preserve a resource.
The most comprehensive metadata standards are
Dublin core, VRA core, EAD and protocol for
metadata harvesting. The following standards are
requirement in automated and digital library system
and it also emphasizes that two ILS software is
selected on the basis of global recommendations
and local requirement (See table-1).
Koha NewGenLib
Support Score Support Score
Yes 1 No 0
Yes 1 Yes 1
Yes 1 No 0
Yes 1 Yes 1
Yes 1 Yes 1
Yes 1 Yes 1
Yes 1 Partial 0.5
Yes 1 No 0
62
Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System

Koha NewGenLib
SL Metadata Parameter
Support Score Support Score
9 Mapped to the MARC format Yes 1 No 0
10 VRA Core 28 elements Yes 1 Partial 0.5
11 Viewing on or offline Yes 1 No 0
12 Optional and repeatable Yes 1 No 0
13 Linked to one or more related Yes 1 Partial 0.5
image records
14 EAD (Encoded Archival SGML Yes 1 Yes 1
Description)
15 MARC equivalency Yes 1 Yes 1
16 ISO 8879 Yes 1 No 0
17 Bibliographic records are Yes 1 No 0
integrated
18 Protocol for Metadata Harvesting OAI-PMH Yes 1 Yes 1
Total Score (Out of 18) Koha Score: 18 NewGenLib Score:
8.5

Table – 1: Metadata Standards in Open Source ILS

Koha scored 18 out of 18 whereas NewGenLib
scored 8.5 out of 18 (Table 1) in respect of
metadata standards including Dublin core, VRA
core, EAD and protocol for metadata harvesting on
the basis of ILS-DI recommendations.
Bibliographic Standards
The Machine Readable Cataloging format (MARC)
was originally developed by the Library of
Congress to automate the production of catalog
cards. Over time, MARC has become widely used
internationally and expanded to support advances
in technology and library practices (Furrie, 2000).
The USMARC formats have evolved into the
MARC 21 specifications, becoming the defacto
standard for bibliographic formats in library
computer applications (http://www.loc.gov/marc/).
The MARC 21 formats specify three content
designators like tags, subfield codes and indicators.
There are five MARC 21 format or content
specifications, each addressing a specific type of
data:
 The MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic
Data
 The MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data
 The MARC 21 Format for Authority Data
 The MARC 21 Format for Classification
Data
 The MARC 21 Format for Community
Information
MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data
Bibliographic data is the core component of an
automated library system. It forms the basis of all
online catalogs and shared cataloging processes.
All the functional modules of an integrated library
system utilize or interact with the bibliographic
data in some way. In earlier versions of MARC,
each type of material (book, photograph, map,
computer file, etc.) had a separate format defined.
In the 1990s, however, the concept of “format
integration” was implemented—now all material
types are addressed with one format and all MARC
21 fields may be used with any material type.
MARC 21 Format for Authority Data
Authority data acts like an online thesaurus,
allowing for control of authorized names and
subjects used in designated fields of bibliographic
records. These records may also generate cross
references from unused to preferred terms and
interrelationships between authority entries. The
MARC 21 Format for Authority Data identifies
seven kinds of authority records—established
heading, reference, subdivision, established
heading and subdivision, reference and subdivision,
node label—and defines how each type is to be
encoded.
MARC 21 Format for Classification Data
At this time the only system using MARC 21
classification data is the centralized database of
Library of Congress Classification records
maintained at the Library of Congress. Including
Guidelines for Content Designation defines the
codes and conventions (tags, indicators, subfield
codes, and coded values) that identify the data
elements in MARC classification records. This

Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013 63

Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System

document is intended for the use of personnel
involved in the creation and maintenance of
classification records, in the publication of
classification schemes from machine-readable data,
as well as those involved in the design and
maintenance of systems for the communication and
processing of classification records. A section in
the documentation entitled scheme-specific
conventions describes coding practices for the two
major classification schemes, the Library of
Congress Classification and the Dewey Decimal
Classification.
MARC 21 Format for Community Information
Many libraries, especially public ones, identified a
need for storing and making accessible to patrons
local information about their organization and
community that cannot be described by the
traditional bibliographic record. The MARC 21
Format for Community Information was the answer
to that need. It identifies five types of community
information records—individual, organization,
program or service, event, and other—and defines
how each type is to be encoded.
MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data
The holdings data describes the particular items
and copies in the library’s collection that are
associated with a bibliographic record. Proper
holdings format and coding is critical to the
operation of circulation related functions, serials
check-in, and integrated acquisitions. The MARC
21 Format for Holdings Data specifies data fields
and tags for three types of holdings—single-part
items, multi-part items, and serial items—as well as
rules for embedding holdings in or linking holdings
to the bibliographic record. The current version of
the standard has incorporated the required holdings
elements specified in ANSI/NISO Z39.71 and
includes a chart mapping MARC data elements to
those in Z39.71. An encoding level tag has been
added to identify the specificity of the holdings
statement at 5 defined levels.
These MARC 21 formats are represents in the
table-2 by using two open source ILS software
Koha and NewGenLib and parameters are selected
on the basis of global recommendations.

Parameters Koha NewGenLib

SL MARC 21 Formats
Support Score Support Score
1 The MARC 21 Format for Without limitation on record length Yes 1 No 0
Bibliographic Data
2 9XX or X9X locally defined tags Yes 1 Yes 1
3 Importing and exporting Yes 1 Partial 0.5
4 Content designators Yes 1 No 0
5 Librarian/cataloger workstation, Yes 1 Yes 1
OPAC, Z39.50 client, and Web
browser.
6 Pickup list Yes 1 Partial 0.5
7 The MARC 21 Format for Authority Control of authorized names Partial 0.5 No 0
Data
8 Generate cross references Yes 1 Partial 0.5
9 Seven kinds of authority records Yes 1 Partial 0.5
10 Generate SEE and SEE ALSO Yes 1 Yes 1
references
11 Display in OPAC Yes 1 Partial 0.5
12 Editing and access in locally and Yes 1 No 0
globally
13 The MARC 21 Format for Managed five types records Partial 0.5 No 0
Community Information
14 Limit searches Yes 1 Partial 0.5
15 Linkages to an authority file Yes 1 No 0
16 MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data Displays the items and copies Yes 1 Yes 1
17 Serials check-in Yes 1 Yes 1
18 Integrated acquisitions Partial 0.5 No 0
19 Managed three types of holdings Yes 1 Partial 0.5

Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013 64

Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System

Parameters Koha NewGenLib

SL MARC 21 Formats
Support Score Support Score
20 Linking holdings to the bibliographic Yes 1 No 0
record
21 ANSI/NISO Z39.71 Yes 1 Partial 0.5
22 85X/86X paired fields Yes 1 Yes 1
23 863 field should update automatically Partial 0.5 No 0
24 The MARC 21 Format for Library of Congress Classification Yes 1 Yes 1
Classification Data
25 Dewey Decimal Classification. Yes 1 Yes 1
26 Linking to MARC authority records Yes 1 Partial 0.5
27 Fields 050-09X Yes 1 Partial 0.5
Total Score (Out of 27) Koha Score: 25 NewGenLib
Score: 13
Table – 2: MARC 21 Formats in Open Source ILS

Koha scored 25 out of 27 whereas NewGenLib scored 13 out of 27 (Table - 2) but Koha supports most of the
parameters and it will managed the digital resources as well as metadata.

Authority Control Standards

Library cataloguing, right from the beginning, is essentially standard driven process. Authority records
management is no exception. A set of related standards is essential for a globally competitive authority database
in view of global use by different types of libraries. Standards driven authority record management ensures
reduce cost of cataloguing as well as efficient retrieval.

SL Standards related with authority records Koha NewGenLib

Support Score Support Score
1 MARC 21 authority format Yes 1 No 0
2 Linking of authority records with bibliographic records Yes 1 Yes 1
3 ISO-2709 based import/export Partial 0.5 Partial 0.5
4 Z 39.50 based distributed searching/downloading of authority Yes 1 Yes 1
records (Z 39.50 client)
5 Z 30.50 based server facility to act as authority record provider (Z Yes 1 No 0
39.50 server)
6 Reuse of authority records for different bibliographic records Yes 1 Yes 1
through segment linking
7 Support for FRAD model Partial 0.5 No 0
8 Support for Leader, Control and Number fields of MARC 21 Yes 1 No 0
authority format
9 Support for MARC-XML, MODS, METS etc. No 0 No 0
10 Supports for Multilingual authority data (Unicode) Yes 1 No 0
11 Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) Yes 1 Partial 0.5
12 Functional Requirement for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) Partial 0.5 No 0
13 Functional Requirement for Authority Data (FRAD) Yes 1 Partial 0.5
14 Resource Description Access (RDA) No 0 No 0
15 Functional Requirement for Authority Records (FRAR) Yes 1 Partial 0.5
16 ISAAR Partial 0.5 No 0
Total Score (Out of 16) Koha: 12 NewGenLib: 5
Table – 3: Authority Control Standards in Open Source ILS

Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013 65

Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System
Koha scored 12 out of 16 whereas NewGenLib
scored 5 out of 16 (Table 3) but both of these
software are not yet compliant with emerging
standards like MARC-XML and METS. One
advantage of Koha is that the ILS can act as Z
39.50 authority server. It means if we are able to
develop a country-wide database of authority
records (say at National Library or Central
Reference Library), libraries all over the country
can snatch validated multilingual authority data
from that server at no cost.
Digital Preservation
In modern integrated library system the problem of
managing digital resources. There are many open
source digital library software including like
GSDL, Dspace, Fedora and Eprints etc. Apart from
these software it can managed through open source
library management software like Koha and
NewGenLib.
Tag 583 and 856
Field 583 contains information about actions taken
on cataloged resources. This particular set of
instructions defines practice for recording
information about preservation and digitization
actions. Preservation & Digitization Actions:
Terminology for the MARC 21 Field 583 defines
standardized terminology for preservation and
digitization actions and allows institutions to record
these actions, including those which may take place
in the future (commonly referred to as prospective
cataloging or queuing). Information in the 583 field
is used to inform preservation decisions and by
institutions to determine whether and to what
extent an item or collection may have been
preserved or digitized. Because of this, institutions
recording prospective preservation and digitization
actions must commit to either completing the
actions or to updating the record should the action
not take place for whatever reason.
Information needed to locate and access an
electronic resource. The field may be used in a
bibliographic record for a resource when that
resource or a subset of it is available electronically.
In addition, it may be used to locate and access an
electronic version of a non-electronic resource
described in the bibliographic record or a related
electronic resource. Field 856 is repeated when the
location data elements vary (the URL in subfield
$u or subfields $a, $b, $d, when used). It is also
repeated when more than one access method is
used, different portions of the item are available
electronically, mirror sites are recorded, different
formats/resolutions with different URLs are
indicated, and related items are recorded.
OpenURL
More and more full text resources are now
becoming accessible on web sites of publishers,
libraries, professional bodies. These resources are
identified by a URL. However, when the web site
decides to move the resource to some other
location within the site or even remove it from their
site, the old URL captured in a database will no
longer point to the resource. This leads to
frustration for the user. This is particularly so when
users search journal article databases or when they
access e-journals
(http://library.caltech.edu/openurl/). Access to the
full text of articles is sought and this is where the
concept of a persistent URL becomes necessary.
However, users, working as they do in an
organizational context, have defined access and
view privileges for e-serials and databases. For
instance, the organization they work for may not
have access to an e-journal’s full text but only to
the abstract of articles.
Interoperability
Interoperability means the ability of multiple
systems (with different hardware & software
platform and data structure interface) to exchange
data with minimal loss of content functionality. A
crosswalk is a mapping of the elements, semantics
and syntax from one metadata schma to those of
another. It allows metadata created by one
community to be used by another group that
employs a different metadata standard.
Interoperability includes the exchange of data,
records, and messages between computer systems
across different hardware, operating systems, and
networks. The greater the ease and seamlessness of
the exchanges, the greater is the interoperability.
Interoperability is sought to be achieved by
establishing standards that different vendors of
software and hardware can adopt so that they can
share data and information. LMS are now
supporting various standards and protocols like
Z39.50, OAI-PMH, SRU/SRW, ZING, YazToolkit,
NCIP Toolkit and etc. to achive interoperability.
Z39.50
The growth of shared cataloguing and cooperative
cataloguing initiatives allow capturing
bibliographic data from remote library servers over
the Internet. It reduces unit cost of cataloguing and
saves lot of time for individual libraries. However,
the major problem is of variation in software and
hardware. Library professional have to learn the
specific features of each system. More the
electronic resources grow; more will be the
confusion on how to access the information from
diverse databases. ANSI/NISO Z39.50 standard
was developed to share the bibliographical
information electronically and to overcome the
problems of database searching with different
search languages (Moen, 2002). Z39.50 is a session
oriented program-to-program open communication
protocol based on client-server computing model.
LMS incorporated with Z39.50 copy cataloguing
66
Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System
client (called target), which then process the
request and returns the result in desired in
standards. LMS will then place the captured record
in the catalogue editor for manipulation.
Yaz Toolkit
YAZ is a C/C++ programmer's toolkit supporting
the development of Z39.50v3 clients and servers.
The YAZ toolkit offers several different levels of
access to the ISO23950/Z39.50, SRU and ILL
protocols. The level that you need to use depends
on your requirements, and the role (server of client)
that you want to implement. Libraries and vendors
can freely download YAZ and its associated
toolkits to build their own Z39.50 applications.
Alternatively, they can use the consultancy and
support services of Index Data to take advantage of
our decade of experience building and supporting
Z39.50 toolkits and applications
(http://linux.die.net/man/7/yaz).
NCIP Toolkit
The NCIP Toolkit will allow XC user-interface
clients to interact with an ILS for authentication
requests, live circulation status lookups, and
circulation requests. XC uses the NCIP standard
protocol to accomplish this. Once the NCIP Toolkit
has been successfully installed alongside a
compatible ILS, that ILS will be able to
interoperate both with XC and non-XC NCIP
clients. The NCIP Toolkit is intended to be
installed alongside a /compatible ILS and act as an
intermediary between NCIP /clients and the ILS.
When a client sends an NCIP request to the toolkit,
the request is parsed and sent to the ILS using its
proprietary interface. The response is then
translated back into the NCIP protocol and returned
to the client. XC user interface clients will use
NCIP to provide user interface functionality that
requires real-time interaction with the ILS database
(http://code.google.com/p/xcnciptoolkit/).
ZING
Ppresented an outline of the next generation of
information retrieval standard Z39.50, that was
announced in February 2004 by the International
Agency for maintenance of Z39.50 standard about
launching the next generation of the standard which
was called the ZING a set of standards and
protocols which are aimed at improving the use of
criterion and overcome the problems facing users
and at the same time don't work by itself, but
integrates with standard (Mahmud Abdel Sattar,
2006).
SRU/SRW
The SRW (Search & Retrieve Web Service)
initiative is part of an international collaborative
effort to develop a standard web-based text-
searching interface. It draws heavily on the abstract
Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013
models and functionality of Z39.50, but removes
much of the complexity. SRW is built using
common web development tools (WSDL, SOAP,
HTTP and XML) and development of SRW
interfaces to data repositories is significantly easier
than for Z39.50. In addition, such arcane record
formats as MARC and GRS-1 have been replaced
with XML (http://www.oclc.org/research/
activities/ srw.html). SRU (Search & Retrieve URL
Service) is a URL-based alternative to SRW.
Messages are sent via HTTP using the GET
method and the components of the SRW SOAP
request are mapped to simple HTTP parameters.
The response to an SRU request is identical to the
response to an SRW request, with the SOAP
wrapper removed.
Advanced Level Standards
There are many advanced level standards are
available in integrated library system. Most
Integrated Library Systems are still bibliographic /
reference based—they were not designed for the
storage and retrieval of full text and multimedia. It
also managed the metadata both for librarian as
well as user interface.
Application Programming Interface (API)
An application programming interface (API) is a
specification intended to be used as an interface by
software components to communicate with each
other. An API may include specifications for
routines, data structures, object classes, and
variables. An API specification can take many
forms, including an International Standard such as
POSIX, vendor documentation such as the
Microsoft Windows API, the libraries of a
programming language, e.g. Standard Template
Library in C++ or Java API
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_progr
amming_interface). An application-programming
interface (API) is a set of programming instructions
and standards for accessing a Web-based software
application or Web tool. A software company
releases its API to the public so that other software
developers can design products that are powered by
its service. For example, Amazon.com released its
API so that Web site developers could more easily
access Amazon's product information.
Web Access or Information Mashup
A mashup, in web development, is a web page, or
web application, that uses and combines data,
presentation or functionality from two or more
sources to create new services. The term implies
easy, fast integration, frequently using open
application programming interfaces (API) and data
sources to produce enriched results that were not
necessarily the original reason for producing the
raw source data (Miller, 2002). The main
characteristics of a mashup are combination,
visualization, and aggregation. It is important to
67
Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System
make existing data more useful, for personal and
professional use. To be able to permanently access
the data of other services, mashups are generally
client applications or hosted online. In the past
years, more and more Web applications have
published APIs that enable software developers to
easily integrate data and functions instead of
building them by themselves. Mashups can be
considered to have an active role in the evolution of
social software and Web 2.0. Mashup composition
tools are usually simple enough to be used by end-
users.
In ILS open source software Koha supports several
useful Web 2.0 features, Use RSS feeds to get
informed as new arrivals are added to the catalog
and user can create their own reading lists and
share with friends. Library staff can create public
reading lists to better serve their patrons and staff
can publish News items on the OPAC or on the
Staff Client for that matter. We know patrons want
to know what other readers think about a particular
item. Patrons can submit comments on any item in
the catalog. Staff can choose to moderate the
comments before they are displayed on the OPAC.
Generic Electronic Document Interchange
(GEDI)
The Generic Electronic Document Interchange
(GEDI) standard defines the formats and protocols
for exchanging electronic documents. It was
created to avoid the development of disparate non-
standard automated systems as electronic document
delivery continues to grow in availability. A
standard set of formats and transport mechanisms
will encourage the use of electronic document
delivery, allow the use of automated systems to
increase speed and lower delivery costs, and utilize
the same networking technology for ordering and
delivering documents (Corthouts, et. al., 1996). The
GEDI format consists of two parts: the header or
cover information and the electronic document
itself. To facilitate use of GEDI with the ISO ILL
Protocol, the header tags have been mapped to
equivalent data elements defined in ISO 10161-1,
Interlibrary Loan Application Protocol
Specification. Document formats currently
supported are TIFF, PDF, and JPEG, however the
standard is designed to accommodate registration
of additional formats as they become widely
accepted.
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
EDI, the electronic exchange of information to
conduct business transactions is commonplace
today in many industries, especially for purchasing
and invoicing. Both the customer and supplier can
benefit by the use of EDI through reduced data
entry time, improved accuracy of data (no rekeying
errors), and faster speed of response and
transaction fulfillment. Many publishers and book /
Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013
serial agents are set up to utilize EDI with libraries
for orders, invoices, claims, claim responses, and
shipping notices (http://www.icedis.org/). EDI
implementation requires the use of a highly
structured format. Two major standards: ANSI X12
and EDIFACT (ISO 9735) are the specifications
utilized most widely, X12 in the U.S. and
EDIFACT internationally, especially in Europe.
Each standard defines (very differently) the EDI
messaging structure, syntax, codes, transaction sets,
directory of elements, and rules of behavior. Both
of these standards are quite complex; in fact, each
is actually a series of standards. Additionally,
neither X12 nor EDIFACT are static standards;
new versions and interim releases are scheduled
periodically to address technology and industry
changes. The X12 transaction sets that are typically
used in library applications include: 810 Invoice
(e.g. serials renewal invoice), 850 Order, 855 Order
acknowledgement, 997 Functional
acknowledgement (by receiving system of the
transaction set), 869 Order status inquiry/ Claim
and 870 Order status response / Claim response.
Serial Item and Contribution Identifier (SICI)
The SICI standard defines a coding structure to
assign unique identifiers to serials (called Serial
Items) and articles within them (called
Contributions). The code builds on the
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) for
the serial item portion of the identifier. The SICI
code is derived algorithmically from bibliographic
information about the serial and/or article and may
be generated by the creator/publisher of the items
and contributions, by a third party vendor such as a
document delivery supplier or abstracting and
indexing service, or by the library which acquires
and holds the materials
(http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-
56.pdf).
Data Elements for Binding Library Materials
Z39.76 identifies and defines common data
elements used to process and track library materials
for binding when information about the material is
exchanged between a library management software
system and a binding preparation software system.
Use of the specified data elements in an automated
library system can reduce duplicate data entry
when preparing binding orders, improve accuracy
and consistency of binding labels, and allow for
more automation of binding processes. The
standard incorporates other identifying codes and
standard numbering systems such as ISBN, ISSN,
and SICI
(http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-
76.pdf).
Code 39
Code 39 is a general barcode standard utilized in
many industries. It is sometimes called the “3 of 9
68
Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System

code” as it uses 9 bars, 3 of which are wider than
the others, to define a character. An alphanumeric
system is used which can have up to 43 characters
with 1 start/stop code pattern. Code 39 is
considered one of the easiest codes to use because
of its self-checking capability.
GILS (Global Information Locator Service)
The Global Information Locator Service (GILS) is
a Z39.50 profile developed to provide a uniform
search and retrieval method for accessing U.S.
federal government information. The U.S.
Government’s information runs the gamut of
disciplines from the arts to sciences, social
sciences, and legislative information; the
complexity of both the government’s information
and its management bureaucracy makes it difficult
to prescribe any standard formats for its vast array
of resources. GILS seeks instead to specify a
common set of access points and a search and
retrieval gateway to the information regardless of
where it is located as long as the server is GILS-
compliant.The GILS Profile specifies a “GILS
Core” utilizing Z39.50 requirements and, in
addition, provides specifications relating to other
aspects of GILS conformant servers that are outside
the scope of Z39.50. Servers compliant with the
ISO 23950 Geospatial Profile (GEO) or the Catalog
Interoperability Profile (CIP) are also compliant
with the GILS standard. Any libraries that want to
make government information more accessible to
their patrons will want to have GILS
interoperability at least at the Z-client level. To
assist libraries in implementing GILS, Annex B of
the profile maps the GILS Core Elements to
MARC formats (http://www.gils.net/prof_v2.html).
ISO 8777 (Commands for interactive text
searching)
ISO 8777 names and defines 30 search and retrieve
commands, eight symbols or punctuation used to
qualify the commands, and the expected system
response to each command. The goal is to provide
a common language for conducting searches in a
command mode. With the widespread use of
browser-based graphical user interfaces, command
searching is not utilized as much in library systems,
particularly in the patron access modules.
However, it may still be useful to have commands
as an alternate search method for those who are
familiar with and like Boolean searching.
Command searching can be very useful for library
technical staff to find and retrieve records for
administrative, maintenance, data clean-up, and
reporting purposes. A number of Integrated Library
Systems offer “CCL” searches as an “Expert
Search” or “Command Search” option because of
the power of such a search and the speed of
entering the search criteria.
Conclusion
Most early metadata standards have
focused on the descriptive elements needed for
discovery, identification, and retrieval. As metadata
initiatives developed, administrative metadata,
especially in the rights and preservation areas was
further emphasized. Technical metadata is one area
that still does not get much attention in metadata
schemas. The World Wide Web has created a
revolution in the accessibility of information. The
development and application of metadata
represents a major improvement in the way
information can be discovered and used. New
technologies, standards, and best practices are
continually advancing the applications for
metadata.
Libraries and information centres in India
have always been faced with difficulties when it
comes to choosing software to automate their
libraries. This problem is even more exacerbated
today when they are facing competition from other
players as they will need to justify the choice of a
software even more convincingly to their
managements than before. In such a scenario, the
best approach is to concentrate not so much on
criteria that will help the library to become more
efficient but on how software will make it possible
for the library to utilize networked resources for the
benefit of their users.

References

ANSI/NISO Z39.56 (n.d.). Serial Item and Contribution Identifier (SICI) Retrieved from
http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-56.pdf (Accessed on March 10, 2013)

ANSI/NISO Z39.76 (n.d.). Data Elements for Binding Library Materials

http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-76.pdf (Accessed on January 7, 2013)

Corthouts, Jan [et. al.] (1996). Electronic Document Delivery and GEDI, in Project VirLib (CN/XX/A06) -
Deliverable Report T02: Research into Existing Standards, VirLib, 1996. http://143.169.20.1/M
AN/T02/t51.html (Accessed on February 5, 2013).

Electronic Data Interchange (2004). International Committee on EDI for Serials (ICEDIS) website.Retrieved
from http://www.icedis.org/ (Accessed on March 14, 2013)

Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013 69

Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System

FIPS 192-1a, Application Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS). Retrieved from
http://www.gils.net/prof_v2.html (Accessed on March 16, 2013).

Furrie, Betty (2000). In conjunction with the Data Base Development Department of The Follett Software
Company, Understanding MARC Bibliographic: Machine-Readable Cataloging, 5th edition, 2000.
Retrieved from http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/umb/(Accessed on February 9, 2013).

Mahmoud, A, S. (2006). ZING next generation of Z39.50 information retrieval standard. Retrieved from http://
www.informatics.gov.sa/modules.php?name (Accessed on January 10, 2013)

Miller, Dick R. (2002). Adding Luster to Librarianship: XML as an Enabling Technology,

MLGSCA/NCNMLG Joint Meeting, Scottsdale, AZ, January 31, 2002.
http://elane.stanford.edu/laneauth/Luster.html (Accessed on January 17, 2013)

Moen, William E. (2002). Indexing Guidelines to Support Z39.50 Profile Searches. Retrieved from
http://www.unt.edu/zinterop/ZinteropNew/Documents/IndexingGuidelines1Feb2002.doc. (Accessed on
March 12, 2013).

NISO OpenURL (2012). openURL. Retrieved from http://library.caltech.edu/openurl/ (Accessed on April 19,
2013).

Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013 70