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 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; 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. Standards compliance needs to be considered from 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. 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. 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:    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 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 ANSI/NISO Z39.85 Yes 1 No 0 2 Referenced metadata Yes 1 Yes 1 3 Fifteen elements Yes 1 No 0 4 XML syntax Yes 1 Yes 1 5 HTML Yes 1 Yes 1 6 Cross-domain searches Yes 1 Yes 1 7 W3C Yes 1 Partial 0.5 8 DCMI Yes 1 No 0 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013 62 Standards Requirement for Integrated Library System Metadata SL Koha Parameter NewGenLib Support Score Support Score Mapped to the MARC format Yes 1 No 0 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 image records Yes 1 Partial 0.5 SGML Yes 1 Yes 1 MARC equivalency Yes 1 Yes 1 16 ISO 8879 Yes 1 No 0 17 Bibliographic records are integrated Yes 1 No 0 OAI-PMH Yes 1 Yes 1 9 10 VRA Core 14 EAD (Encoded Archival Description) 15 18 Protocol for Metadata Harvesting 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. SL MARC 21 Formats 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 Support Score Support Score Without limitation on record length Yes 1 No 0 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, OPAC, Z39.50 client, and Web browser. Yes 1 Yes 1 6 Pickup list Yes 1 Partial 0.5 Control of authorized names Partial 0.5 No 0 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 references Yes 1 Yes 1 11 Display in OPAC Yes 1 Partial 0.5 12 Editing and access in locally and globally Yes 1 No 0 Managed five types records Partial 0.5 No 0 Limit searches Yes 1 Partial 0.5 Linkages to an authority file Yes 1 No 0 Yes 1 Yes 1 1 2 7 8 13 14 15 16 The MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data The MARC 21 Format for Authority Data The MARC 21 Format for Community Information MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data Displays the items and copies 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 SL MARC 21 Formats Koha NewGenLib Support Score Support Score 20 Linking holdings to the bibliographic record Yes 1 No 0 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 Library of Congress Classification Yes 1 Yes 1 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 24 The MARC 21 Format for Classification Data 25 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 records (Z 39.50 client) Yes 1 Yes 1 5 Z 30.50 based server facility to act as authority record provider (Z 39.50 server) Yes 1 No 0 6 Reuse of authority records for different bibliographic records through segment linking Yes 1 Yes 1 7 Support for FRAD model Partial 0.5 No 0 8 Support for Leader, Control and Number fields of MARC 21 authority format Yes 1 No 0 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 Table – 3: Authority Control Standards in Open Source ILS Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013 NewGenLib: 5 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 textsearching interface. It draws heavily on the abstract 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 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013 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 endusers. 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 nonstandard 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 / 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/Z3956.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/Z3976.pdf). Code 39 Code 39 is a general barcode standard utilized in many industries. It is sometimes called the “3 of 9 Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5) December, 2013 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 GILScompliant.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 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 http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-76.pdf (Accessed on January 7, 2013) from Materials 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