The beauty of having standards is that once everyone follows them, we can mix and match products that rely on the RFID tags. The RFID system no longer has to determine the library's materials handling or self-service fate. Libraries can choose the best products from among the array of vendor choices as long as the tags are ISO 18000-3, Mode 1 tags and each vendor encodes the tags according to the US Data Profile.

Before the ISO 28560 standards were finalized, libraries tended to choose an RFID vendor rather than RFID components. This was the best way to ensure that all the pieces would work together. However, this approach doesn't necessarily get the library the best solution. This is particularly apparent when considering automated materials handling (AMH) solutions because some excellent AMH vendors are not in the RFID business. They sell sorters and self check-in machines and maybe self check-out machines, but their systems are agnostic on the matter of barcodes or RFID tags, and they do not provide RFID solutions as part of their business model. Many libraries have issued single tenders for an “RFID and AMH system” and found that certain companies didn't respond to the RFP because that vendor couldn't provide the total solution. With a US Data Profile providing the standards, it is no longer necessary to do one-stop shopping.

Even among the RFID vendor offerings, there is reason to mix and match. For example, some RFID staff interfaces work better with one ILS than others. But just because the staff workstation from one vendor is better doesn't mean that vendor's self-check machines are superior. As long as the library specifies that all tags and equipment must comply with the new standard, the equipment should be interoperable.

Although the tags themselves are manufactured by only a few companies, libraries can purchase them from any number of vendors as well as consortia. They can be purchased from library supply companies, companies that provide RFID staff equipment, security gates, or self-check equipment, the AMH vendor, or the library's book supplier.

However, purchasing tags from established library vendors has some advantages. In most cases, the vendors will guarantee the tag for the life of the item to which it is affixed. Whether this warranty is provided by the manufacturer or not, the library RFID vendors often agree to replace any tags that need to be replaced on a book, CD, or DVD. They are counting on the relatively short circulating lifespan of the library item compared to the lifespan of the tag. Once placed inside a book or on a CD or DVD, the tags are expected to function very effectively for ten years or more.

However, libraries shouldn't rely just on the expectation that the tags will continue to work effectively for the life of their library items. In rare cases, some tags have been found to lose read range over time. This may be something that is largely addressed with state-of-the-art ISO 18000-3, Mode 1 tags, but libraries are advised to establish clear criteria for what it means to warrant the tag for the life of the book. Does it mean guaranteeing the tag won't fall off?—in which case, that is really just a warranty on the adhesive used.

The quality guarantee with your tag provider should include guarantees of the tags’ effectiveness in numerous ways:

• Does the tag stay attached to the item and not interfere with its operation (e.g., the CD/DVD tags). Whether your library is in Alaska or the Bahamas, the tag should stay attached.
• Does the read range degrade over time, or does it stay consistent for the life of the item? Measure the read range of the tags in various situations in your library and document their effectiveness. Use that as the measure that you and your tag supplier will use to determine if there is any degradation.
• Are bit dropouts causing problems reading and writing the data accurately? Unfortunately, it isn't possible to use error correction with the 28560-2 standard, so if some of the bits encoded on the tag begin randomly changing (as can happen with these kinds of electronics), you could start having a lot of trouble using your equipment. With high-quality tags, bit dropout is likely to be rare and isolated. But there is always the chance of getting a bad batch, so including a way to get those tags replaced is a contingency that should be written into your warranty.

As of this writing, standard book tags were available for under 20 cents each. Full-coverage CD/DVD tags range from 65 cents to 91 cents each, but look for the price of these tags to go down as more libraries start using the full-coverage tags instead of the ring tags.

Once the library decides to move forward with RFID, it will want to get the RFID tags in place as early in the workflow as possible. Book jobbers will provide the RFID tag in new material, but eventually, industry experts expect that RFID tags will be installed at manufacture.

Purchasing new library material with tags already in place is a great way to optimize the library's technical services workflow. Most jobbers such as Baker & Taylor, Midwest Tape, and Ingram can put pre-encoded (with the barcode number) RFID tags inside the material they provide to libraries. With a data model standard, it will be easier for the jobbers to provide this service because the variations between library data profiles and proprietary encoding methods will be largely eliminated. This should bring down the cost of providing these services and therefore the fees charged to libraries.

Libraries can also install RFID tags on new material as part of their technical services workflow. However, it is likely that eventually tags will be provided in all new library material, so this particular workflow may be short-lived. Let's hope so.

Whether outsourcing or doing the tagging with library staff (see the section Tagging Costs in chapter 2 for more information on these two options), the following guidelines should be followed to ensure your RFID conversion process meets the US Data Profile standard:

1. Use ISO 18000-3, Mode 1 tags.
2. Encode the tags according to ISO 28560-2.
3. Stagger the placement of tags inside the material.

The first step is to buy the correct type of tag and the standard that related to the physical tag is ISO 18000-3, Mode 1. What you write on that tag and how you encode it is a function of the ISO 28560 standards and the finalized US Data Profile is based on those ISO 28560 standards.

Most RFID implementations today encode only the barcode number and maybe some set information to their RFID tag. However, the data elements provided by the new standards create opportunities to improve some of the more labor-intensive workflows. To take advantage of these elements, the library needs to do the work to rethink its workflows and then get the cooperation of several key players, including the ILS vendor and the manufacturers of the RFID-enabled equipment.

One of the first decisions to be made is what data should be stored on the tag and what data should be stored in the ILS. Traditionally, all information about a library item, patron, and transaction has been stored in the ILS. Information that will enhance the library's operation or allows the library to function when connectivity to the ILS is unavailable may be a good candidate for storing on the tag. For example:

• Use Type of Usage to ensure noncirculating material isn't checked out.
• Use Destination Library to sort material at off-site sorting facilities and eliminate the need for routing slips.
• Use Supplier Identifier and Order Number to enhance receiving operations.
• Use Set Information to enhance security of multipart sets.

There are still potential barriers to interoperability even with the new standard. These come in the name of “enhancements” that might be offered by vendors. Vendors will surely seek ways to differentiate their products now that their proprietary solutions have been “end-of-lifed” with the new standards. These enhancements may appear attractive to libraries that don't understand that using these enhancements will render their systems noninteroperable with other libraries or other vendors. They may be attracted to the promise of better security or improved privacy protections that the enhancements offer. Some libraries may have legitimate reasons to seek these enhancements, but it is important to recognize which features will affect the interoperability of your RFID system because this will increasingly be a big cost to pay as more and more libraries rely on the ability to use each other's tags. It's very possible that eventually RFID tags will be as critical to library operations as the barcode is today.

An important reason to use the AFI is that it ensures that library tags can't be read by nonlibrary readers. It also ensures that library tags will not interfere with other nonlibrary readers. For this reason, the current US standard specifies that the AFI should be set, even if it is not used for library security.

Some of the enhancements that could interfere with the interoperability of a library's heretofore-compliant RFID system are:

• Vendor-specific encrypting and encoding of the data
• Proprietary security functions
• Software or firmware that is system dependent and can only be used with specific tags

When designing your library's RFID system and working with vendors, be sure to remain cognizant of the effect of any decisions you make on the interoperability of your system. Moving from interoperable to proprietary puts the library in a dangerous and potentially expensive position that is probably not worth whatever the so-called enhancements are.

Related to the above barrier is the need to develop a mechanism for US libraries to verify that the tags they are purchasing are compliant, that the library's implementation of the data model is compliant, and that each vendor writing to the tags is doing so consistent with the library's data model and the standard.

As of this writing, there is no mechanism for doing any of these things in the United States. It is important that libraries have a way to ensure compliance that goes beyond vendor assurances. As we know from past experiences, vendors do not always know when they are compliant. The standard provides for a lot of flexibility for the library (in terms of which fields it will use) and for the vendors that write data to the tags. Encoding data on the tag is a complex business¹ that involves writing data to different areas of the tag, encoding the data elements, and compacting the data.

Convergent Software is a company located in the United Kingdom. It has developed a set of tools that can be used by vendors and libraries to verify compliance to ISO 28560-2. The United Kingdom and Australia both adopted ISO 28560-2 long before NISO began moving in that direction, so the development of these tools in the United Kingdom is no surprise. However, it remains to be seen how US libraries can avail themselves of these tools. It isn't reasonable for every library implementing a compliant RFID system to purchase this company's tools to verify compliance. The tools are not trivial in terms of ease of use or cost. However, neither is it reasonable to trust vendors to verify their own system whether they use this particular company's tools or not.

Moving forward, US libraries need to identify a mechanism for verifying compliance that is affordable for libraries. The service must be offered by an objective third party (not an RFID vendor). The service needs to be available to libraries to test a vendor's tags (before and after encoding) and to assist libraries in developing their own compliant implementation plan. Whether this role is appropriate for a NISO body, ALA, or an independent entrepreneur is for the library community to decide. But it is important to begin discussing the issue of verifying compliance.

Until a few years ago, the push for RFID has come largely from vendors interested in selling RFID tags. Like every other industry using RFID tags, the library needs to determine how to leverage this technology rather than use it in a limited way. Prior to the finalization of the US Data Profile, it is understandable that libraries were reluctant to move in any direction about extending the use of RFID. Library RFID tags contain the barcode number and not much more. But the potential for doing much more is now here. It is up to libraries to decide how to take advantage of the tags to optimize workflows for staff and patrons and provide new services for patrons. For example:

• Use Set Info to improve security of multipart sets.
• Eliminate the use of routing slips in libraries by using Owner Library, ILL Borrowing Institution and possibly Subsidiary of an Owner Library, and Shelf Location to sort material. The library system's sort facilities could be equipped with RFID-based sorters (human or automated) capable of sorting material without either routing slips or a connection to the ILS. The United Kingdom and the Danes are already using Owner Library and ILL Borrowing Institution this way.
• Develop a library app for RFID-enabled smartphones that allow users to check out items with their phones, eliminating the need to stop at a self-check machine to turn off security at a special kiosk. (Tech-Logic/Boopsie currently support self-checkout with a user's smartphone, but it requires turning off security at a special kiosk.)
• Use UCC, ISBN, or ISSN umbers on noncirculating items that work with RFID-enabled smartphones and library-developed apps that link to enhanced content such as reviews or recommendations.
• Use of Type of Usage to provide better control of items when the ILS is down.
• Use Title on noncirculating items to provide support for mobile devices that could help staff and perhaps even patrons locate specific items.
• Set up reader's advisory kiosks in the library or vending machines in other locations that can be used to find “more books like this one” while accepting returns.
• Use Shelf Location to provide more granular sorting of returned items to more quickly move items back to the Hold shelf or display area or up to the third floor.
• Receive new acquisitions box by box instead of item by item using Supplier Identifier and Order Number in combination with the unique identifier on each new item.
• Eliminate much of the paperwork involved in ILL processing by encoding the ILL transaction number on the tag and using the ILL or ILS software to track the transaction.
• Use a Local Data field to count circulations or “date last circulated” to support weeding functions without requiring a connection to the ILS.
• Use a Local Data field to indicate special handling requirements for items in the back office.

The possibilities are endless, but to take advantage of those possibilities, people working in libraries need to understand how the technology works and then start thinking creatively. Rather than waiting for the vendors to come up with some ideas that they think are marketable, the push for new developments should really come from library staff and library users themselves.

With a set of defined fields libraries can use and standards to ensure we can use those fields while still being assured of library and vendor interoperability, all that is holding us back is our own creativity and ILS support. In order for RFID vendors to work with the ILS, they need to be able to communicate—to pass information back and forth. At the present time, there are two established protocols for supporting communication with the ILS: SIP and NCIP.