1

Open Library Environment

Canadian Library Association Annual ConferenceMay 31, 2009

2

Agenda

Part 1:Background to project

(Jim Clark)

Part 2:Technical overview

(Barney Shum)

Part 3:Status of project

(Jim Clark)

Part 4:Q & A

3

Part 1 Overview

• What is OLE?

• Objectives

• Background

• Principles

• Project assumptions

4

What is OLE?

• A project supported by the Mellon Foundation to design a new kind of library system for research institutions

• Phase 1: create a design document

• Key attributes: broad consultation, transparent process

• Phase 2 (future): Build project

5

What is OLE?

"The Open Library Environment (OLE) project will develop a flexible, adaptable, and community-driven software framework to manage libraries that support research, teaching, and higher learning. The OLE framework provides processes for acquiring, describing, managing, and delivering information and transforms those processes to deliver services and resources in new ways ... OLE raises the library’s information management processes to the enterprise level and integrates them into the academic and administrative infrastructure."

http://oleproject.org/overview/project-scope/

6

More and less than an ILS

• More integration of all formats, physical and electronic schema-neutral - flexible data model that incorporates

many standards

• Less removes functions that do not need to be in the

library’s domain (e.g. fund accounting, identity management)

public discovery layer out of scope

7

Objectives

• To use open, flexible technology to produce an alternative to current products, including Integrated Library Systems (ILS) and electronic resource management (ERM) systems

• To automate core library functions in a way suited to modern workflows

• To interoperate with applications beyond the library

8

Project rationale - Summary

• State of current, commercial ILS products. • There is a growing need for library systems to

interact with other enterprise systems.• Libraries need to control their own destinies.

9

Rationale – Current ILS products

• Perception that ILS products were designed for managing print and other tangible resources

• Need to rethink business processes and incorporate electronic resources from the beginning

• Fewer vendors and products

10

ILS Vendor options are narrowing. We are spending money and staff time buying and integrating add-on products.

Marshall Breeding

http://www.librarytechnology.org

ILS Vendor options are narrowing. We are spending money and staff time buying and integrating add-on products.

Marshall Breeding

http://www.librarytechnology.org

11

Rationale - Interoperability

• Traditional ILS products do not always interoperate well with other systems used by an organization

• Library system must fit into the I.T. infrastructure of the institution

12

Our library business technologies are not well connected to the more modern, enterprise-level technology used in financial systems, student information systems and course management systems.

Our library business technologies are not well connected to the more modern, enterprise-level technology used in financial systems, student information systems and course management systems.

13

Rationale - Control

• Libraries need to control their own destinies

• Control over data to offer new services

• Control over software to meet local requirements for unique functionality to make enhancements and contribute to the

community

14

Emerging Options

• Traditional ILS (e.g. Millennium)

• Open source ILS (e.g. Evergreen, Koha)

• Commercial new generation library automation (e.g. URM – Unified Resource Management)

• Cloud based automation platform (e.g. OCLC WorldCat Local)

• Enterprise SOA (e.g. OLE)

15

Project starting point

• Early 2008 - Initial assessment of interest in libraries

• April 2008 - Development of proposal by a diverse group of libraries

• June 2008 - The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation provided funding for the design project

• August 2008 - Project underway

16

OLE planning partners

1717

Principles

• Flexibility

• Community Ownership

• Service Orientation

18

Principles

• Enterprise-Level Integration

• Efficiency

• Sustainability

19

Project Assumptions

• OLE will provide services that will help academic & research institutions accomplish their core mission by improving the library’s ability to deliver its content and services throughout the institution’s activities.

• OLE will enable libraries to be more of a component with the enterprise infrastructure raising the relevance of libraries to the organization’s mission

20

Project Assumptions

• Adopting a model of community-source software development and a technology infrastructure based on service orientation is, in itself, a strategic innovation for libraries and universities.

• Digital formats will dominate our business processes.

• Collaborative and consortial activity is increasingly as important to libraries as work at local institutions.

21

Agenda

Part 1:Background to project

(Jim Clark)

Part 2:Technical overview

(Barney Shum)

Part 3:Status of project

(Jim Clark)

Part 4:Q & A

2222

Part 2 Overview

• SOA Definition

• SOA Explained

• OLE System Objective

• Pain Points to be Addressed in OLE by SOA

• Benefits of the SOA Approach in OLE

• Some of the technical work to date

2323

SOA Definition

Malte Poppensieker at the University of Trier

“In Service-Oriented Architecture autonomous, loosely-coupled and coarse-grained services with well-defined interfaces provide business functionality and can be discovered and accessed through a supportive infrastructure. This allows internal and external system integration as well as the flexible reuse of application logic through the composition of services."

2424

SOA Explained

• Modular– Loosely Coupled

– Coarsely Grained

– Peer-to-Peer Services

• Distributable– Open & Standards

based

– Platform Neutral

– Location Transparent

• Clearly Defined• Interface Based

• Swappable• “Black Box”

• Shareable• Generically useable

2525

OLE System Objective• OLE aims to provide a fabric of services that can be

composed in a variety of ways to meet the needs of differing library scenarios.

• OLE offers a flexible framework that will accommodate a variety of organizational implementations.

• OLE is neutral in regards to how libraries organize themselves and share data and services.

• OLE aims not to execute existing workflows more efficiently, but to enable libraries to transition to new ways of performing their work and allocating resources more aligned to their strategic priorities.

2626

• For those libraries that are doing development work, there is not yet a clear framework that ensures those newly designed things will work together

• Better integration with enterprise IT

• Better integration with multiple software programs and segments of library business

• Better integration across library consortia (e.g., through authentication that crosses multiple systems)

• More flexibility in responding to rapidly changing patron behaviour

• The complexities of licensing, acquiring and holding materials in different formats is not easy to accommodate in current systems

• There are too many hierarchical, non-integrated systems

Pain Points to be Addressed in OLE by SOA

2727

• SOA can help with reducing the constraints imposed by a monolithic system

• SOA can help with liberating our data

• SOA can help with integration goals (cost of integration kept low; interoperability)

• SOA can help with making things more configurable

• SOA can help with agility

• SOA can help with governance of interoperability – helps us measure, monitor and enforce policies and SLAs around consortial activities

• Federated identify management would have a SOA aspect

Where does SOA help us

2828

Benefits of the SOA Approach in OLE

• Service-oriented Architecture focused on placing the library within the enterprise infrastructure of the broader institution.

• Emphasis on partnerships and consortial interactions

• Community source development

• Governance by institutions that create and use the software

• A fresh approach to automating the workflows of library operations devoid of that established by legacy software products.

• Resource management for the library’s collections of digital and print content which can also extend to other information assets of the institution not previously under the library’s stewardship.

2929

e-frameworkNLA Shareable Collection SUM

3030

NLA Service Framework

3131

OLE Reference Model (current)

3232

References• Open Library Management Systems, John Little

(Duke University), as presented at “The Transformed Library SAMM 2008, May 8, 2008”

• The OLE Project: Reconceptualizing Technology for Modern Library Workflow—An SOA Approach, Michael Winkler (University of Pennsylvania), Beth Forrest Warner (University of Kansas) and Robert H. McDonald (Indiana University)http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TheOLEProjectReconceptualizing/171241

• https://wiki.nla.gov.au/display/LABS/3.+Service+framework

• http://www.e-framework.org/

33

Agenda

Part 1:Background to project

(Jim Clark)

Part 2:Technical overview

(Barney Shum)

Part 3:Status of project

(Jim Clark)

Part 4:Q & A

34

Part 3 Overview

• What we have done so far

• Documents

• Where we’re headed

35

What have we done so far?

• 5 in-person meetings• Public webcasts• Regional design workshops• Canadian workshop

• Formation of working groups• Presentations at conferences• Outreach to library directors, IT groups• Conversations with other projects

36

Extensive library involvement370+ people from 125

institutions at 12 regional workshops

385 individuals from 217 institutions in webcasts

360+ people from 106 US and 35 non-US libraries and 27 organizations or businesses subscribed to website

Interaction with diverse audiences at 35+ presentations

Columbia UniversityDuke UniversityLehigh UniversityIndiana UniversityLibrary and Archives CanadaNational Library of AustraliaOhioLink

Columbia UniversityDuke UniversityLehigh UniversityIndiana UniversityLibrary and Archives CanadaNational Library of AustraliaOhioLink

Orbis Cascade AllianceRutgers UniversityUniversity of ChicagoUniversity of FloridaUniversity of KansasUniversity of MDUniversity of PAVanderbilt University

Orbis Cascade AllianceRutgers UniversityUniversity of ChicagoUniversity of FloridaUniversity of KansasUniversity of MDUniversity of PAVanderbilt University

Primary planning group:Primary planning group:

37

Canadian workshop

•January 14-15, 2009

• 40 participants, 19 organizations, 6 provinces

38

39

What have we done so far?

• Scope documenthttp://oleproject.org/overview/project-scope/

• Workflow diagramshttp://oleproject.org/overview/ole-reference-model/

• FAQhttp://oleproject.org/faqs/

40

Where we’re headed

• Identify Build Partners – Spring• Post design document – June• Final design document &

project report for Mellon Foundation and public – July

• Develop build proposal – June/July• Set up governance structure• Start development – Fall/Winter

41

More information at:

http://oleproject.org

Barney Shum

Library and Archives Canada

barney.shum@lac-bac.gc.ca

Jim Clark

Library and Archives Canada

jim.clark@lac-bac.gc.ca