RFID technology for libraries still suffers from a lack of standards. Early adopters bought tags that aren’t necessarily usable with today’s RFID systems. RFID readers, security systems and materials handling systems are often purchased from a single vendor in order to ensure that all the components and tags work together. Tags that any library buys today will not necessarily work with all the circulation or security components a library might like to use in the future. One of the big standards hurdles is a data model standard. The data model specifies what information can be stored on a tag and where it will be located on the tag. This is an important first step toward interoperability.
In December of 2007, the NISO RFID Working Group published a Best Practices document that included a data model. Note that this is not a standard but a recommendation. The goals of the NISO RFID Working Group are:
1. 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.
2. To examine and assess privacy concerns associated with the adoption of RFID technologies in libraries
3. 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.
4. To focus on security and data models for RFID tags, along with issues of interoperability and privacy.
5. To create a set of recommendations for libraries with regard to a tag data model and other issues.
Ultimately, the NISO RFID Working Group seeks a future where library RFID technology is truly interoperable (nationally as well as internationally) and personal privacy is protected. Ideally, tags will support advanced functionality and security, and can be used the entire lifecycle of the library material. The availability of Best Practices Guidelines and the data model recommendations are an important start to achieving interoperability but it still doesn’t provide a standard that binds vendors. Even if vendors choose to meet the current data model guidelines, there are barriers to interoperability including issues related to encrypting and encoding of the data, proprietary security functions, and firmware that is system dependent.
Still…..libraries considering implementing RFID should follow the guidelines provided by the NISO RFID Working Group which include selecting a vendor that is compliant with the current NISO data model recommendation and a vendor with a published migration path for ensuring ongoing compatibility with new standards (per the NISO recommendations). Compliance with the guidelines provides the best protection that the library’s choice of vendor and product will be interoperable with existing and future technology, and will preserve the library’s investment.

Just came across the PPT of Vinod Chachra’s presentation at ALA-Seattle (PDF here) in which he summarizes what is going on with the NISO Standards Committee on Library Applications of RFID.

His slides are detailed enough that you can pretty much make sense of what’s happening and I’m happy to say there’s a bit more going on that I would have thought. The best news is that the group has established four levels of interoperability that they are concerned about and they are roughly described as compatibility within the library, within the community, for ILL and for the supply chain.

Interoperability Level One: Within the Library
Addresses the fear that tags may not be useful or available in the future requiring expensive and time-consuming retagging. Suggestions include standardization of tags and data on tags and interoperability of tags from different manufacturers.

Interoperability Level Two: Within the Community
Addresses the issue of library tags being read by non-library readers or non-library tags being read by library readers. The group is recommending adopting the Application Family Identifier (AFI) to address this issue.

Interoperability Level Three: ILL Purposes
The concept here is that a tag from library A should be able to service the circulation needs of Library B. This requires a standard data model for all tags.

Interoperability Level Four: Supply Chain
Tags should be being applied as high up in the supply chain as possible so they can be used by the manufacturer, distributor, book jobber and libraries. Requires standards to be normalized for each party in that supply chain.

A final report from the NISO Working Group is due in June of 2007. That’s progress!