NISO RP-6-201x

RFID in U.S.
Libraries
Issued for Public Comment:
May 10, 2011 – June 9, 2011
April 2011

A Recommended Practice of the
National Information Standards Organization

Prepared by the
NISO RFID Revision Working GroupDRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENTAbout NISO Recommended Practices
A NISO Recommended Practice is a recommended "best practice" or "guideline" for methods, materials,
or practices in order to give guidance to the user. Such documents usually represent a leading edge,
exceptional model, or proven industry practice. All elements of Recommended Practices are discretionary
and may be used as stated or modified by the user to meet specific needs.
This recommended practice may be revised or withdrawn at any time. For current information on thestatus of this publication contact the NISO office or visit the NISO website (www.niso.org).

Published by
National Information Standards Organization (NISO)One North Charles Street, Suite 1905
Baltimore, MD 21201
www.niso.org

Copyright © 2011 by the National Information Standards Organization
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. For noncommercial
purposes only, this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without
prior permission in writing from the publisher, provided it is reproduced accurately, the source of thematerial is identified, and the NISO copyright status is acknowledged. All inquiries regarding translations
into other languages or commercial reproduction or distribution should be addressed to:
NISO, One North Charles Street, Suite 1905, Baltimore, MD 21201.

Printed in the United States of America
ISBN (13): TBD

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

Table of Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... iv
Section 1: Use of RFID in Libraries

1

1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Tagging in Libraries.................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Self Check-Out ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Check-In, Including Manual, Conveyor, and Sorting Systems................................................... 2
1.5 Inventory Systems...................................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Support for Interlibrary Loan (ILL) .............................................................................................. 3
1.7 RFID Standards in Libraries ....................................................................................................... 3
Section 2: NISO Data Model and U. S. Profile for ISO 28560-2

5

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Data Objects .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1 Advantages of Looking Up Data in the ILS ...................................................................6
2.2.2 Advantages of Storing Data on the Tag ........................................................................ 6
2.3 Mandatory and Optional Data Objects ....................................................................................... 6
2.4 Locked vs. Unlocked .................................................................................................................. 7
2.4.1 Locking Pros and Cons .................................................................................................7
2.5 U.S. Profile for ISO 28560 – RFID in U. S. Libraries .................................................................82.5.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 8
2.5.2 Primary Item ID ........................................................................................................... 10
2.5.3 Tag Content Key (also called OID Index) ...................................................................11
2.5.4 Owner Library/Institution ............................................................................................. 11
2.5.5 Set Information (also called multi-part indicator) ........................................................ 12
2.5.6 Type of Usage ............................................................................................................. 13
2.5.7 Shelf Location ............................................................................................................. 13
2.5.8 ONIX Media Format ....................................................................................................142.5.9 MARC Media Format ..................................................................................................142.5.10 Supplier Identifier ........................................................................................................ 14
2.5.11 Order Number ............................................................................................................. 14
2.5.12 ILL Borrowing Institution ............................................................................................. 15
2.5.13 ILL Transaction ID ....................................................................................................... 15
2.5.14 GS1 Identifier (includes ISBN) .................................................................................... 16
2.5.15 Alternative Unique Item Identifier ................................................................................ 17
2.5.16 Local Data A................................................................................................................ 17
2.5.17 Local Data B................................................................................................................ 17
2.5.18 Title ............................................................................................................................. 17
2.5.19 Product Identifier (alternative) ..................................................................................... 18
2.5.20 Media Format (other) ..................................................................................................18
2.5.21 Supply Chain Stage ....................................................................................................18
2.5.22 Supplier Invoice Number ............................................................................................. 19
2.5.23 Alternate Item ID ......................................................................................................... 19
2.5.24 Alternative Owner Institution ....................................................................................... 20
2.5.25 Subsidiary of an Owner Library................................................................................... 20
2.5.26 Alternative ILL Borrowing Institution ........................................................................... 20
2.5.27 Local Data C ............................................................................................................... 20

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENTi2.6 Relative OID ............................................................................................................................. 20
2.7 Data Format (DSFID) Declaration............................................................................................ 21
2.8 Encoding ..................................................................................................................................21
2.9 Use of Primary IDs and Supply Chain Stages ......................................................................... 22
Section 3: Security

23

3.1 RFID Security for Libraries ....................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Application Family Identifier (AFI) ............................................................................................ 23
3.3 AFI Codes and Interoperability ................................................................................................ 24
3.3.1 AFI Locking ................................................................................................................. 24
3.3.2 Interlibrary Loan Situations ......................................................................................... 24
3.3.2.1 Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS) .......................................................................... 24
3.3.2.2 Virtual Deactivation (Database Look-Up) .................................................................... 25
3.3.2.3 Recommendations for Security ................................................................................... 25
Section 4: Library Migration to ISO Standard Tags

27

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 27
4.2 Compatibility ............................................................................................................................. 28
4.3 Role of RFID Vendor ................................................................................................................ 29
4.4 Role of Integrated Library System Vendor ............................................................................... 29
4.5 Suggested Migration Process ..................................................................................................29
4.5.1 Migration Considerations ............................................................................................ 29
4.5.2 On-the-fly Migration.....................................................................................................30
4.5.3 Systematic Migration ...................................................................................................30
4.6 Questions for RFID Vendors ....................................................................................................31
Section 5: The Book Supply Chain: The Value of Standardization

32

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 32
5.2 Distributors and RFID Tag Applications ................................................................................... 32
Section 6: Privacy

35

6.1 Privacy Issues .......................................................................................................................... 35
6.2 ALA Resolution on RFID Technology and Privacy ..................................................................35
6.3 ALA Guidelines on Privacy and Confidentiality in RFID .......................................................... 36
6.4 Implementing the NISO RFID Recommendations and ALA RFID Policy ................................ 37
Section 7: Vandalism38

7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 38
7.2 Modification of Security Data ...................................................................................................38
7.3 Modification of Tag Contents ...................................................................................................38
7.4 RFID Viruses ............................................................................................................................ 38
7.5 Intentional Detuning of the Tag ................................................................................................ 39

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENTii

7.6 Physical Defacing or Removal of the Tag ................................................................................ 39
7.7 Moving Forward ....................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix A: RFID Technology Basics .............................................................................................. 40
Appendix B: Interoperability Characteristics ................................................................................... 46
Appendix C: UHF RFID in Libraries ...................................................................................................49
Appendix D: Encoding Data on the RFID Tag .................................................................................. 51
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 67
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 68

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

iii

Foreword
NISO RFID Revision Working Group Charge
The original NISO RFID Working Group was formed in 2006 to focus on the use and implementation ofradio frequency identification (RFID) technologies in U.S. libraries. In January 2008, NISO formally
published the Recommended Practice, RFID in U.S. Libraries (NISO RP-6-2008). Since that time, there
have been new developments with regard to RFID implementation in the larger book industry as well as
in other countries, including the U.K., Denmark, the Netherlands, and Australia. After the publication of
NISO RP-6-2008, the ISO Working Group on RFID in Libraries (ISO TC46/SC4/WG11) produced a threepart standard (ISO 28560) governing the encoding of data on RFID tags for item management in libraries.
This work has resulted in ambiguities between the original NISO publication and the final ISO
publications. One of the goals of a new effort sponsored by NISO, the NISO RFID Revision Working
Group, is to eliminate these ambiguities.
This revision includes input from RFID hardware manufacturers, solution providers (software andintegration), library RFID users, distributors and processors, and related organizations. This revision to
the 2008 Recommended Practice was necessary to bring the advice from NISO in line with international
standardization efforts. It will also provide United States implementers of RFID tags in libraries sufficientguidance to conform to the ISO work.
Among the goals of this revision and the original document were the following:•

To review existing RFID standards, assess the applicability of this technology in U.S. libraries andacross the book publishing supply chain, and promote the use of RFID where appropriate.

•

To examine and assess privacy concerns associated with the adoption of RFID technologies inlibraries.

•

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.

•

To focus on security and data models for RFID tags, along with issues of interoperability andprivacy.

•

To create a set of recommendations for libraries with regard to a tag data model and other issues,
with the specific goals for this revision of:a. Reviewing and updating information in the original document.
b. Ensuring conformance between the approved ISO standard and the NISO recommended
practice.
c.

Creating a set of recommendations for a U.S. data model standard.

d. Providing specific examples to make implementation easier for manufacturers and libraries.

Outcomes
The NISO RFID Revision Working Group document recommends a set of practices and procedures toensure interoperability among U.S. RFID implementations. All sections of the original 2008 document
have been reviewed and updated to reflect changes in practices for protection of personal privacy,
support advanced functionality, facilitate security, protect against vandalism, and allow the RFID tag to be
used in the entire lifecycle of the book and other library materials.
This Recommended Practice includes:
1. A checklist (for libraries and vendors) that can be used to evaluate the degree of conformancewith the ISO 28560. This checklist is available at
http://biblstandard.dk/rfid/docs/conformance_28560-2.pdf

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENTiv

2. A set of recommend practices and procedures to ensure interoperability among U.S. RFID
implementations.
3. A list of suggestions to reduce the impact of migrating from non-conforming systems to
conforming systems or running with “mixed” tag systems (older tags and newer conforming tags).
These NISO recommendations for best practices promote procedures that:a. Allow an RFID tag to be installed at the earliest point in the lifecycle of the book and usedthroughout its lifecycle from publisher/printer to distributor, jobber, library (shelving, circulating,sorting, re-shelving, inventory, and theft deterrence), and interlibrary loan, and then on tosecondary markets such as secondhand books, returned books, and discarded/recycled books.
b. Allow for true interoperability among libraries; that is, a tag in one library can be used seamlessly
by another, even if they have different suppliers for tags, hardware, and software.
c.

Protect the personal privacy of individuals while supporting the functions that allow users to reap
the benefits of this technology.

d. Permit the extension of these standards and procedures for global interoperability.
e. Remain relevant and functional with evolving technologies.
Early RFID implementers are at considerable risk because of the lack of interoperability of proprietary
vendor systems. As RFID providers and libraries adopt tags with the data model recommended in thisrecommended practice, true interoperability that allows libraries to procure the tags, hardware, andsoftware from independent providers and distributors to use with all tags can become a reality.
The data model outlined in this document is an essential first step. This model is a key precursor to aworld in which a library can procure tags from different vendors, merge collections containing tags fromdifferent vendors, and, for the purposes of interlibrary loan, read the tags on items belonging to otherlibraries.
Even with a data model, there are other barriers to interoperability and plug-and-play capabilities. They
include:a. Vendor-specific encrypting and encoding of the data.
b. Proprietary security functions, which are an advantage when considering hackers, thieves, etc.,
but are a detriment to interoperability (see Section 3).
c.

Software or firmware that is system dependent and can only be used with specific tags.

The ideal is that RFID tags compliant with the data model can be usable by other RFID vendors. With
standards recommended in this document, interoperability and the ability to embed tags into books atmanufacture is within reach.
For libraries already heavily invested in RFID, Section 4 addresses issues related to migration or
upgrading of tags to be compliant with the data model.
In this report, The NISO RFID Working Group is providing its best insights into these complex issues anda possible way forward.

NISO Topic Committee Members
The Content and Collection Management (CCM) Topic Committee had the following members at the time
it approved this Recommended Practice:[to be added by NISO after approval]

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENTvNISO RFID Revision Working Group Members
The following individuals served on the NISO RFID Revision Working Group, which developed andapproved this Recommended Practice:
Livia BitnerBaker & Taylor

Corrie Marsh
The University of Texas-Pan American

Vinod Chachra (Co-chair)
VTLS, Inc.

Paul Simon
Checkpoint Systems, Inc.

Alan Gray
Darien Library

Paul Sevcik (Co-chair)
3M Library Systems

Margaret Hazel
Eugene Public Library

Rob Walsh
EnvisionWare, Inc.

Gretchen Herman
BrodartDaniel Walters
RetiredNancy Kress
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Acknowledgements[to be added to final text as needed]

Trademarks, Service Marks
Wherever used in this recommended practice, all terms that are trademarks or service marks are andremain the property of their respective owners.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

vi

Section 1: Use of RFID in Libraries
1.1

Overview

Libraries use RFID tags on books and other items to provide identification during check-out, check-in,
inventory, and for theft deterrence. Benefits of adoption may include:a. Reduction of staff manual processes, errors, and repetitive motion
b. Enhanced customer experience through fast and private self check-outsc.

Reduction of staff and patron time spent in finding items

d. Integrated security functionality
While costs continue to decrease due to mass adoption, current RFID implementations require an initialinvestment and ongoing expense, particularly in the case of a parallel implementation of automatedmaterials handling. While there is a growing body of anecdotal and published reports on return on
investment, the rationale for implementation today is usually based on such criteria as:
a. Reduction in the percentage of staff time spent on check-out
b. Reduction in the percentage of staff time spent on check-in
c.

Shift in the volume/percentage of check-outs handled by staff versus patronsd. Increase in circulation handled without additional staff
e. Customer satisfaction with check-out and check-in processesf.

Speed and accuracy of check-in

g. Efficiency of automated materials handling with RFID
h. Speed and accuracy of inventory

1.2

i.

Consolidation of security functionality eliminating the need for separate magnetic strip or lock
boxes

j.

Potential for future opportunities to utilize RFID tag datak.

Reduction or avoidance of worker’s compensation costs from repetitive strain injuries

Tagging in Libraries

Libraries typically buy pre-programmed tags or have their distributors apply and program tags prior to
shipment. While this is an increasing trend for new items, in-library application is still required for
retrospective conversions of existing items and new books, media, periodicals, donated materials, andother items not procured through a distributor. In the longer term, source tagging at item manufacture is
anticipated.
Retrospective conversions can be processed wherever there is a PC with barcode scanner, programming
software, and an RFID reader. The conversion procedure is straightforward and should take only a few
seconds per item. The task can be performed by non-technical staff or volunteers. Some vendors alsooffer dedicated tagging and programming stations with touch screens, automated tag dispensing, andportability for in-stack use, with rates of conversion approaching 500 items per hour with two-person
teams. Consideration must be given to the cost of buying or renting dedicated stations and their spacerequirements. Some vendors will quote a per-item price for third party conversion services as analternative.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

1

1.3

Self Check-Out

Self check-out stations, or kiosks, are generally proprietary touch-screen devices composed of an RFID
reader, barcode scanner for library cards, receipt printer, interface software, and, if the library’s integrated
library system (ILS) does not offer a compatible self check-out module, NCIP (ANSI/NISO Z39.83) or
SIP2 protocol software to communicate with the library’s ILS application or database. Some vendors
configure stations to allow users to view their library accounts, pay fines, and manage their accounts, andnearly all systems provide a basis for staff override in the event of patron difficulty.
It is also possible to procure components or a generic kiosk and outfit it with an RFID reader, barcode
scanner, and necessary software inexpensively, but this approach requires that the self check-outfunctions are embedded in the ILS software. This has been done in several U.S. public libraries. Most self
check-out systems today use client software on the self check-out unit which communicates with theserver software of the ILS, and use the NCIP or SIP2 protocols, but there have also been somedevelopment of web applications and APIs which may communicate more directly with the ILS. The
benefit in moving to these solutions is that it increases the ability of the ILS to communicate with thepatron, and eliminates the dependence upon the middleware NCIP or SIP2.
Self check-out stations allow multiple items to be stacked on the reader for instant and simultaneouscheck-out. The number of items that can be stacked for simultaneous check-outs depends on the read
range of the antenna, and the type of items. (DVDs, CDs, and books on CD with their metal substrates
reduce the number of items that can be so stacked.) Various means have been developed to try to aid in
the success of multiple item check-out, including anti-collision software and barriers or boxes to limit theheight of items in the stack. In order to simplify the process and limit any possible errors that may affectthe patron experience, some libraries allow only single item self check-out. This also provides a familiar
experience for patrons who use retail self check-outs.
Self check-out stations have been largely counted as successful and while untagged items or patroncircumstances—e.g., excessive fines, expired cards, address checks, and other blocks on cards or limits
on material types—may still require a staff intervention or check-out, some libraries report seeing self
check-out rates range from 30 to 99% of total transactions. Key factors mentioned in high rates of self
check-out are intuitive, easy-to-use stations; placement of the self-check stations near to but not
immediately adjacent to the staffed circulation desk; small footprints to allow for multiple station
placement; encouragement and promotion by staff; friendly loan and fines policies; and self pick-up of
items on hold. Examples of user-friendly loan and fine policies might include allowing patrons to pay finesat the self check-out station using a credit card, debit account, or PayPal, or increasing the threshold at
which self check-out use is blocked due to fines.
Due to concerns regarding decreased read range on metallic content materials, some libraries add
various alternative security measures to those materials, which may or may not affect self-check rates.
Generic locking cases require staff intervention. Some vendors offer integrated self-check lock boxes that
may be automatically unlocked once checked out. The additional cost and usability factors of thesemeasures, or those of a media jukebox, must be evaluated by each library. (For more on security issues,see Section 3.)

1.4

Check-In, Including Manual, Conveyor, and Sorting Systems

Whether check-in takes place manually or via an automated process, RFID significantly streamlines thecheck-in of returned items. When check-in takes place manually, RFID also significantly reduces staff
repetitive motions.
Conveyor and sorting systems are becoming more prevalent in libraries with the advent of RFID
technology. The RFID reader is either mounted in a return chute or over/under a section of a conveyor
belt. The item passes over or under an RFID reader—long enough to read the content on the tag, turn on
the security, and communicate with the library’s ILS. The item is then sorted into bins or onto shelving
carts according to item type, location code, or other information. This is particularly valuable for sorting
items on hold into specified bins. Systems typically have anywhere from three to fifteen bins or carts,
though larger systems utilize a much larger number of bins. It should be understood that RFID return

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

2chutes without or with limited sorting capability will require manual intervention to perform accurately, forexample to sort for holds. Their main advantage would be in fast updating of patron records to allow
checking out more of a limited collection and the ability to provide check-in receipts automatically.
Manual check-ins are made significantly easier, faster, and more ergonomically friendly with RFID
because fewer fine motor movements are required to place an item on a reader than to read the barcode
with a scanner. For those using multi-item processing, more books can be checked in at one time. Again,
NCIP or SIP2 installations may require more handling to interpret non-standard messages and exceptions
than a direct API communication method.

1.5

Inventory Systems

RFID technology can make such routine tasks as shelf reading, inventory control, and item locationconsiderably faster. Early RFID-based inventory systems were limited in the reliability of their high-speed
scanning of shelved items. Newer systems with faster reading protocols allow for improved accuracy.
Typical hardware offered by vendors includes an inventory wand and reader module attached to abattery-powered computer with wireless capabilities. Items on a shelf can be inventoried by moving thehandheld wand along item spines.
Challenges to reliability include thin items, items in direct contact with metal shelf dividers, covers, or
pages with metallic ink or foil content, multiple adjacent items with tags placed in the same location, andany media items with metal content, e.g., CDs and DVDs.

1.6

Support for Interlibrary Loan (ILL)

While RFID is not necessary for ILL, it could be a powerful force for efficiency. For libraries with ILL
modules built into their ILS, RFID holds the promise of streamlining staff operations. A key requirement
for interlibrary RFID use is compliance with a national or internationally accepted data model. Once acompliant environment is achieved, the receiving library staff can quickly read the unique identifier on the
tag and attach it to the bibliographic record received from their bibliographic network. This would signalthat the item is received and would allow automated procedures to occur, from patron notification to self
pick-up and self check-out. A current benefit of RFID in some ILL processes, even before introducing
standardization, includes being able to easily circulate ILL items by temporarily affixing a programmed tag
to the item once it arrives at the borrowing institution. This not only enables self check-out, but also self
pick-up of holds.

1.7

RFID Standards in Libraries

Several standards are available to assist with interoperability in the area of RFID in Libraries. These canbe divided into two broad categories: Technology Standards and Application Standards. Technology
standards define the chips used in the tags, and the readers used in RFID, and how they pass
information back and forth. Application standards define how the technology is applied to a particularindustry—in this case Libraries. The role of the application standards for RFID is to define how data isstored on the chip in the tag. This definition then allows system designers to produce systems which canproperly encode and read the tags, even when multiple providers are involved.
There are two International Standards Organization (ISO) / International Electrotechnical Commission(IEC) technology standards pertinent to library RFID tags and readers: ISO/IEC 15693, Information
technology – Radio frequency identification for item management – Unique identification for RF tags,
and ISO/IEC 18000-3, Information technology – Radio frequency identification for item management –Part 3: Parameters for air interface communications at 13,56 MHz, Mode 1. These two standards define
the wireless interface and communication protocols between RFID tags and readers. Libraries havebroadly adopted the ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 standard. It is important to note, however, that thesetechnology standards view libraries as one niche application in a global industrial landscape. There aremany other uses for these RFID standards. Further details on RFID standardization are contained inAppendix A.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

3

When one talks about ISO/IEC standards, it is useful to understand the technical committees andsubcommittees, because this has a bearing on how the work gets done and also upon who thestakeholders are. ISO/IEC 15693 is the responsibility of JTC1 (Joint Technical Committee on Information
Technology), SC17 (Subcommittee 17, Cards and personal identification). All the ISO/IEC 18000 series
standards are the responsibility of JTC1, SC31 (Subcommittee 31, Automatic identification and data
capture techniques), WG4 (Working Group 4, Radio frequency identification for item management).
The two standards, though related, are not equivalent. ISO 18000-3 Mode 1 has additional features andsome of the features that are optional now are likely to be upgraded to requirements. The rules forApplication Family Identifier (AFI) (discussed in 3.2) are fundamentally different. Although the same basic
chip design platform is used, the library community, as it moves forward with standardization, needs toensure that the tags it uses have the required features. Having said all this, the chip and tag vendors
might still refer to an ISO 15693 tag as being acceptable for library applications. They may very well beright—the only real test is a check on the supported features. The safest position will be to focus on the
ISO 18000-3 Mode 1 standard, as this standard is maintained for item management applications.
Additionally, ISO JTC1/SC31/WG4 is also responsible for ISO/IEC 15961 and 15962. ISO/IEC 15961,
Information technology – Radio frequency identification (RFID) for item management – Data protocol:
Application interface, deals with the commands and responses between the application and encoder.
ISO/IEC 15962, Information technology – Radio frequency identification (RFID) for item management –Data protocol: Data encoding rules and logical memory functions, deals with the process of converting
printable characters or those that appear on a screen into a compacted form for encoding on the RFID
tag. The encoding rules also provide a way of distinguishing between data elements using object
identifiers and, particularly, the Relative-OID as discussed in Section 2.6. Ultimately, these standards,
along with the Danish Data Model (DS/INF 163-1, RFID-data model) form the basis for the application
standards regarding the encoding of data on tags for the three-part standard ISO 28560, Information anddocumentation – RFID in libraries.
The ISO 28560 application standards are controlled by TC46 (Information and documentation), SC4(Technical interoperability), WG11 (RFID in Libraries), and are focused on the application of RFID tolibrary needs. ISO 28560-1, Information and documentation – RFID in libraries – Part 1: Data Elements
and general guidelines for implementation, deals with the definitions of the data elements that may be
encoded onto RFID tags in the library application. ISO 28560-2, Information and documentation – RFID inlibraries – Part 2: Encoding based on ISO/IEC 15962, defines an encoding method for compacting data
elements into objects and placing them on RFID tags for use in libraries which utilizes the encoding rules
defined in the existing standard, ISO/IEC 15962. ISO 28560-3, Information and documentation – RFID inlibraries – Part 3: Fixed Length Encoding, defines an encoding method for placing data elements on RFID
tags for use in libraries which has its basis in the Danish Data Model.
It is the recommendation of the NISO RFID Revision Working Group that ISO 28560-2 be adopted
in the United States for Library RFID Applications. The remainder of this document will provide
additional implementation advice based on that recommendation.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

4Section 2: NISO Data Model and U. S. Profile for ISO 28560-2
2.1

Introduction

The intent of this section is to outline a data model that should satisfy the needs of libraries in the U.S.
The main goal of the model is to provide interoperability for libraries so investments in RFID can be madewith confidence that they will be able to read tags on items from many other libraries, and so that they will
have choices in purchasing RFID equipment and tags in the future.
The goal of interoperability is achieved by following standards and by making sure that the data on the
tag is in a standardized format and is used consistently. The specifications contained in the NISO data
model provide flexibility for some feature differentiation among the vendors by allowing for optional data,
and by not specifying controls on how the data can be used. It also provides a minimum set of the data
objects that must be provided to perform the most basic of library functions using RFID equipment. The
ultimate intention is that RFID tags programmed by one vendor in compliance with the data model will beusable by another RFID vendor without any reprogramming.
There are several data models in use in different parts of the world, including those created by groups in
the Netherlands, Denmark, United Kingdom, Finland, France, and Australia. A few countries in Europe
have adopted the Danish model (see http://www.en.ds.dk/3196), in some cases with important variations.
Some individual libraries in the U.S. have also adopted the Danish model.
In late 2007, the initial NISO RFID Working Group published a best practice document (RFID in U.S.
Libraries, NISO RP-6-2008) recommending data encoding using methods defined in ISO/IEC 15962.
Similar approaches were then recommended by the United Kingdom and Australia, and this approachhas been standardized on a global basis in ISO 28560-2, with data elements defined in ISO 28560-1.
Simultaneously, the Danish model has been adapted to create ISO 28560-3, again with data elements
defined in ISO 28560-1. It is the considered collective opinion of the NISO RFID Revision Working Group
that the interests of U.S. Libraries are best served by standardizing on just one of these encoding
methods for use in the U.S. and, as indicated above, the Working Group is recommending the ISO
28560-2 method, based on ISO/IEC 15962
The remainder of this section describes the implementation of ISO 28560-2 for use with RFID in libraries
in the United States.

2.2

Data Objects

When discussing the possibilities for recording data on RFID tags, it is important to consider that while thevariety of data that might be written on a tag is virtually unlimited, the amount of data is rather restricted.
First, there is the capacity of the tag itself, which is not under the control of the library but rather isdetermined by the chip and tag manufacturers. Second, there is the utility of the information on the tag;that is, how the data will be used and what value it will bring to the application. Third, it is important tokeep the read time of the tag as short as possible. In some cases, more than one read may be required toretrieve all the necessary data from the tag. All of these issues in some way limit the amount of data thatshould be stored on the tag.
Broadly speaking, there are two general options for the data on the RFID tags. The minimalist approachis one safe option. In this option, one would simply choose to place the Unique Item Identifier (such as abarcode) and disallow most everything else. All data required to support system functionality would haveto be looked up in an associated database, such as a library’s ILS. For obvious reasons, this approach ismost attractive to privacy advocates. At the other extreme are those that would put as much data on the
tag as space and cost considerations would allow. The goal of this second approach is to allow thesystem to function with minimum interaction with the ILS.
In the development of a U.S. Profile for compliance with ISO 28560, the NISO RFID Revision Working
Group considered the merits of several data elements, and resisted the exclusion of elements that were

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

5

considered potentially useful in the future. Some of these data elements have generated privacy or otherconcerns in the past, and the working group felt that while libraries should consider those concerns when
making decisions about the use of the data elements, these should not be specifically excluded since
their acceptability or utility may change over time.
The recommendations for this U.S. data model include addition of the owner library identifier in
combination with the primary item identifier to create a nationally unique item identifier. Additional data
elements are optional, or in a few cases excluded. While not adhering to the absolute minimalist
approach, this gives the library flexibility to have a smaller or larger data set based on individual local
requirements.

2.2.1

Advantages of Looking Up Data in the ILS

Generally speaking, storing duplicate information on both the tag and in the ILS is a questionable practiceas it creates a data maintenance and consistency issue. Data, particularly data that changes frequently,
must be synchronized and updated in two places. Additionally, storage of data on the tag adds the
cumbersome requirement of having the physical item in hand to make an update. So libraries are
cautioned against this practice, although sometimes there are good reasons for employing it.
When there is a choice between storing data on the tag or in the ILS, one advantage of storing it in the
ILS is the speed of accessing that data, which may be higher than the speed of reading the data from thetag.
Another advantage of storing the data in the ILS is the tag memory requirement. Database storage isrelatively inexpensive compared to the memory on RFID tags. Keeping the size of data on the tags
relatively small allows manufacturers the opportunity of producing tags with less memory, thereby
reducing the tag costs to the library.

2.2.2

Advantages of Storing Data on the Tag

One of the advantages of storing data on the tag is in situations where, because of design or because of
system failure, there is no connectivity to an ILS or that connection is lost for a period of time. An exampleof this might be the storage of a status of “non-circulating” on tags for reference materials so that during
an ILS outage the material would not circulate on a self check-out station.
Another advantage of storing data on the tag is to provide functionality that might not be directly
supported by an ILS. Upstream from the library, suppliers or publishers may add data to be used by areceiving library, but not particularly by the ILS. Individual library practice may also require adding
information not defined by the recommended model. The data model allows for this usage by defining
three data objects, Local Data A, Local Data B, and Local Data C (see Section 2.5).
As a general rule, there are three categories of data that may be stored on the tag:•

The minimum amount of data to support the RFID system at a national level. In the data model
below, this category includes both the Primary Item Identifier and the Tag Content Key.

•

Data on the tag that enhance the operation—for example, data from suppliers that can assist withreceiving functions, or data indicating that the item is part of a set and that other items arenecessary to complete the transaction.

•

Back-up data that allows the RFID system to function independently of the ILS.

All three categories are considered in the recommended model below.

2.3

Mandatory and Optional Data Objects

The practical application of the ISO 28560 family of standards for RFID in Libraries demands not only thata country ideally settle on one encoding method for best interoperability, but also that a profile be defined
which identifies which data elements are mandatory or optional, which data elements should be locked,
and any data elements which should not be encoded. The subparts of this section comprise the U.S.
profile for ISO 28560.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

6

Mandatory elements are those that are truly required to either make an RFID system function or to enableinteroperability. These elements must be encoded on every tag so that systems can be designed
counting on their presence.
Optional elements are those which may provide extended functionality or which may provide alternative
sources for information that is already in the ILS. Optional elements should be supplemental data, in thatthe most basic functions of library operation can be performed without use of this data. In any case, thetotal amount of data is limited by the memory capacity of the tag, over which the library community has
little or no control.
The Working Group’s recommendations for each data object’s designation as mandatory or optional
appear in the Data Model table, below, in the column labeled “Category”. Additionally, where theISO 28560 family defines a data element that this document is recommending as not to be encoded in the
U.S., that data element is designated as “excluded”.

2.4

Locked vs. Unlocked

Most modern tags with read and write capability also offer the ability to write data onto the tag and then toprotect that data against further modification. This capability is typically called “locking,” and is generally
non-reversible. There are also tags that provide an additional feature that allow locks to be password
controlled so that equipment with the password can unlock them, rendering the lock non-permanent.
Some tags offer this feature as a part of an accepted standard, while others offer it as a proprietary addon feature. This data model makes recommendations on whether different data objects should be locked
or unlocked.

2.4.1

Locking Pros and Cons

Locking data on RFID tags offers advantages and disadvantages to a library, so a considered approach iswarranted. This section will discuss some of the most apparent benefits and disadvantages of tag datalocking:

2.4.1.1 Advantages
a. Locking protects the locked data from inadvertent or intentional modification by an entity withan RFID reader.
Consideration should be given to the potential for local staff or a borrowing library to inadvertently
modify tag contents. Also as RFID readers become more common in devices carried by thegeneral public, such as smartphones, there is the potential for inadvertent or intentional
modification of tag contents. It is important to note that neither of these possibilities has manifest
itself in any significant way in libraries to date, and RFID readers have been available totechnically savvy individuals for years at fairly low cost. As they move into smartphones, however,the potential for misuse of the devices in a library increases.

2.4.1.2 Disadvantages
a. Locking typically introduces some additional time and complexity in the tag programming
process.
Before a library or service provider commits to locking data on a tag, they will want to be verycertain that the data is correctly programmed. Even if these checks can be done completely
automatically, they may involve additional read operations on the tag, which takes a small amountof time. If the checks must be done by staff, there is more potential for error, the training
requirements are increased, and the overall processing time may be significantly increased.
Service providers may pass this burden on to the library in the form of increased costs for theservice provided.
b. Locking prevents a library from modifying the locked content of a tag when it may be
convenient to make a modification.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

7

Examples of instances where a library may want to make modifications to a tag include changes
to primary item identifier or owning library identifier, or circulation status (if stored on the tag). If
any of these data elements are locked and the library wishes to change them, the tag will likely
require replacement. Library policy or procedures can be used to minimize the impact of thesefactors by either limiting the locked data to only particular data elements or by finding proceduralalternatives to changing the data. For example, if the need to change an item identifier is basedon the need to replace a damaged optical barcode label, the barcode label could be duplicatedrather than adopting a new item identifier number from a new label.
c.

If the data is locked, the tag cannot be reprogrammed to conform to a new tag data standard.

This disadvantage is one often cited for proprietary or vendor-defined tag data formats. Despite
significant efforts by the developing organizations, there is always the finite possibility that astandard will not perform well technically, or for other reasons it may not be well accepted andthen the library will wish to reprogram to a different format in the future.
d. The flexibility of encoding tags according to ISO 28560 brings a complication when locking ofdata is considered.
If a library or system implementer chooses to lock data in particular blocks of the tag such that
there might be unlocked data surrounding the locked areas, the process of modifying tag contents
becomes more challenging, as the system must steer the data elements around the locked data,
which is an obstacle in this case.

2.5

U.S. Profile for ISO 28560 – RFID in U. S. Libraries

2.5.1

Summary

The model specifies a total of 26 data objects. Most of the elements are variable length. It is possible that
additional data objects may be added later without compromising the integrity of the model and without
rendering any applications obsolete. This is consistent with the data elements and the encoding specified
in ISO 28560-1 and ISO 28560-2. Table 1 below contains six columns. Together they represent the U.S.
Profile for ISO 28560 – RFID in U. S. Libraries.
Table 1: U.S. Profile for ISO 28560 – RFID in U. S. Libraries
Data Object

Primary Item ID(unique item identifier)Relative
OID*

Formatting

Category

Main
Purpose or
Codes Used

LockedIf Used?

01

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Mandatory

Item
identification

OptionalNo

Tag Content Key

02

Bit mapped code

Mandatory

Determining
what otherdata is on thetag

Owner Library / Institution

03

Variable length.
Max: 16 bytes

Optional (1)Identification –use ISIL code
(ISO 15511)

Optional

Set Info (number of parts;
ordinal part number)

04{Total in Set / Part
Number} structure.
Max: 255 bytes

Optional (2)Item properties

Optional

Type of Usage(Circulating? Reference?)

05

Fixed length.
1 byteOptional (3)Item usage(coded list)

Optional

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

8

Category

Main
Purpose or
Codes Used

LockedIf Used?

06

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Optional (4)SupportInventory –(LC CallNumber,Dewey)

Optional

ONIX Media Format

07

Fixed length.
2 uppercase chars.

Optional (5)Item properties(ONIX code
list)

Optional

MARC Media Format

08

Fixed length.
2 lowercase chars.

Excluded (6)Item properties(MARC code
list)

N/A

09

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Optional (7)Acquisitions
processing

Not
recommended

Order Number

10

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Optional (8)Acquisitions
processing

Not
recommended

ILL Borrowing Institution

11

Variable length.
Max: 16 bytes

Optional (9)Support ILL –use ISIL code
(ISO 15511)

No

ILL Borrowing
Transaction ID

12

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Optional (10)ILL transaction
tracking

No

GS1-13 (including ISBN)

13

Fixed length.
Numeric field.
13 digits.

Optional (11)

Identification

Optional

Optional –Should not
be used until
defined by
ISO 28560

Identification

Not
recommended

15

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV,
or UTF-8

Optional (13)For local orregional use

Optional

16

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV,
or UTF-8

Optional (14)For local orregional use

Optional

17

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV,
or UTF-8

Optional (15)

Identification

Optional

Relative
OID*

Formatting

Shelf Location

Data Object

Supplier Identifier

Alternative unique item
identifier(Reserved)

Local Data – A

Local Data – B

Title

14

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

9

Relative
OID*

Formatting

Category

Main
Purpose or
Codes Used

LockedIf Used?

Product Identifier (local)

18

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Optional (16)

Identification

Optional

Media Format (other)19

Single octet(coded list)

Optional (17)Item properties(no code list
defined)Optional

Supply Chain Stage

20

Fixed
1 ByteOptional (18)For multi-use(coded list)

No

21

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Excluded(19)

Acquisitions

N/A

22

Variable length.
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Optional (20)Itemidentification

Optional

23

Variable length
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Optional (21)Item
identification –for codes not
ISIL compliant

Optional

24

Variable length
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Optional (22)Itemidentification

Optional

25

Variable length
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV

Optional (23)Support ILL –for non-ISIL
code

No

26

Variable length
Alphanumeric.
Character set =ISO/IEC 646 IRV,
or UTF-8

Optional (24)For local orregional use

Optional

Data Object

Supplier Invoice Number

Alternative Item Identifier

Alterative Owner Library
Identifier

Subsidiary of an Owner
Library

Alternative ILL Borrowing
Institution

Local Data – C*See Section 2.6.

2.5.2

Primary Item ID

The Primary Item ID is the identifier that is used to uniquely identify an item within a particular library.
Most typically this is the barcode on the item and is the identifier used in functions like circulation (bothcheck-in and check-out) and inventory management. (See also Section 5.)
To create an identifier hat is nationally and potentially globally unique, the Primary Item ID can be used in
combination with the Owner Library/Institution data element (see 2.5.4).

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

10Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Mandatory

Variable length supporting full
ASCII (ISO/IEC 646 IRV)
character set(Expected length 16 bytes, but
not limited in ISO 28560-2.)

Optionally locked whenused in library; unlocked
in upstream supply
chain

In ISO 28560-2, thisdata element must be
physically the first data
element in the tag
memory2.5.3

Tag Content Key (also called OID Index)

The tag content key is designed to allow RFID applications to determine very quickly what data, if any(other than the Primary Item ID), exists on the tag.
The content key is essentially a binary flag indicating data objects, starting at relative OID 3, that arepresent on the tag. Since the model has a total of 26 data objects and two of them are not represented in
the key, then only 24 bits are needed to flag the 24 additional data objects. It is necessary to maintainbyte boundaries in encoding the data. Since there are exactly 24 additional data objects, only three bytes
are needed. Note that if the data elements populated comprise only lower-numbered OIDs, it is notnecessary to program the Tag Content Key to its full potential length.
EXAMPLE:
Assume that the tag has two additional data elements encoded on it. Further assume that the twoelements are owner library/institution and GS1 product identifier. According to the model, these are
the first and the 11th additional elements. Thus, the content key will be coded with 1 in the first and11th position and zeroes elsewhere. The encoding therefore will be
Code:1000000000100000

Position:

1234567890123456(showing 16 bits in use)

If no additional data fields are on the tag, then the code string will have all zeroes. An all zero string willtell the application that there is no other data on the tag, and this can be represented either as codedzeroes or as a truncated string. There is one other very important implementation detail presented below.
The mandatory nature of this data object is linked to the presence of additional data items on the tag. It
allows a quick determination of which other fields are populated on the tag.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Mandatory(To comply
with theprofile,additional datais encoded.)

Variable length – dependent on
the encoded data set on the tag

UnlockedMust be encoded
directly after the Primary
Item Identifier in thephysical tag memory

2.5.4

Owner Library/Institution

This element is used to identify the owning library or other institution. This identification is useful in ILL
functions and in material flows in consortium networks where patrons are allowed to return borrowed
books to any library in the consortium.
The combination of Owner Library/Institution and Primary Item ID can also form a globally unique
identifier for an item.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

11

It is recommended that an ISIL compatible code be used for this data object. The ISIL Code is defined in
ISO 15511, Information and documentation – International Standard Identifier for Libraries and Related
Organizations (ISIL). Part 1 of ISO 28560 clearly specifies that for interoperability purposes the ISIL code
be used. This recommendation is carried forward in this Recommended Practice.
According to the Registration Authority for ISIL (ISO 15511):(Arabic numerals 0 to 9), unmodified letters from the basic Latin alphabet and the special marks
solidus (/), hyphen-minus (-) and colon (:). Each ISIL identifier shall be unique. When an ISIL is
written, printed, or otherwise visually presented, it shall be preceded by the letters ISIL separated
from the identifier by a space. An ISIL is made up by two TC46 SC4 N552 components: a prefix and alibrary identifier, in that order, separated by a hyphen-minus. The hyphen-minus is a mandatory
character in the ISIL string.
A country code identifies the country in which the library or related organization is located at the time
the ISIL is assigned. The country code shall consist of two uppercase letters in accordance with thecodes specified in ISO 3166-1.
A non-country code prefix is any combination of Latin alphabet characters (upper or lower case) or
digits (but not special marks). The prefix may be one, three, or four characters in length. The prefix isregistered at a global level with the ISIL Registration Authority.
Library identifiers are defined by the national Registration Agency or a non-country agency and are
unique worldwide. The Library identifier will have up to 11 character positions without blanks between
country code and national identifier.
The Registration Authority has establish [sic] the website http://www.bs.dk/isil and information about
national Agencies are updated here. The ISIL is useful enough on a global basis that a library which
does not have an ISIL compatible code should consider obtaining one before undertaking an RFID
tagging project. If this is not possible, or is otherwise not desired, then a non-ISIL code may be
1
encoded in the Alternate Owner Institution data element.
The reader should note that some commonly-used library identifier codes are ISIL-compatible, including
OCLC codes.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Mandatory if
theorganization
has an ISILcompatible
code. Either
this data
element or theAlternate
Owner
Institution data
element must
be populated.

Variable length not to exceed 16
bytes with formatting as
specified above

Optional to lock if used

Encoded according
special rules included in
ISO 28560-2

2.5.5

Set Information (also called multi-part indicator)

This data element is useful if several components (like a book and a map, a board game and a manual,or any multi-part item) are circulated as a single unit.
1

ISO 15511 (ISIL) Registration Authority. Report of the ISIL Registration Authority. TC46/SC4/N552, October 12,
2004.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

12There may be a single RFID tag on the items that are circulating or each separate item may have a tag of
its own.
The set information is presented in two components: The total number of parts followed by the ordinalpart number. If the total number of parts is nine or less, then the user data can be presented as a 2-digit
code. If the total number of parts is between 10 and 99, then the user data is presented as a 4-digit code,with the lowest ordinal values shown as 00 to 09. If the total number of parts is between 100 and 255,
then the user data is presented as a 6-digit code. In this case, if the ordinal value is less than 100, it isprefixed by leading zeros to create a 3-digit number. (See Section D.3 in Appendix D.)
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional(but
Mandatory for
multi-part
items when
RFID is used
to assist withthemanagementof the parts)

Variable length of one, two or
three bytes

Optional Lock if used

N/A

2.5.6

Type of Usage

This data object provides information about the intended use of the item. For circulation purposes, theinteresting values specify whether the item is allowed to circulate, or in some cases whether the item
should receive special treatment in automated material handling systems. A full table of values can befound in ISO 28560-1.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Fixed length of 1 byte

Unlocked

N/A

2.5.7

Shelf Location

In the U.S., there are three primary methods of shelving books. These are:a. By Library of Congress (LC) call number
b. By Dewey Decimal classificationc.

By type of material (like FIC for fiction), concatenated with some characters of the Author’s Name
(This method is used primarily in public libraries.)

The LC call number is usually taken from Library of Congress Classification or from the LC Classification
Additions and Changes. In the MARC 21 format, it generally includes subfields a and b ($a and $b).
The Dewey Decimal Classification number is usually taken from Dewey Decimal Classification, Abridged
Dewey Decimal Classification, and/or DC&: Dewey Decimal Classification Additions, Notes andDecisions.
The purpose of this data object is to allow a library to choose its shelving method and specify it here.
Automatic sorting systems sometimes use a derived code, like a collection code, which is pulled from the
ILS and used for sorting purposes. It could also be used in shelf-reading or inventory applications by ascanner in the library stacks area.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

13

Alternatively, this field could be used for specifying exactly where the book is to be shelved—for instance,
3rd floor, shelf 14. This latter method of designation is not recommended, as a change in shelving
location will require the handling and reprogramming of the tag.
Since this data object is to be used within the library, it is not necessary to identify whether the data object
is an LC call number or a Dewey Decimal number or a number from some local numbering system. The
classification system information could be configured into the system setup rather than obtained from thetag.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Unlocked if used

N/A

2.5.8

ONIX Media Format

This data object is used to specify the format of the media being circulated.
The NISO RFID Working Group recommends utilizing the media format codes from the ONIX for Books
Code List produced by EDItEUR, which is widely supported by BISG (Book Industry Study Group) in the
United States. These codes are included in List 7 of the Code List and referred to as Product Form
Codes 2. ISO 28560-1 recommends use of the most current list.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Fixed length of 2 bytes

Optional lock if used

N/A

2.5.9

MARC Media Format

This data object is used to specify the format of the media being circulated.
It is the inclination of the NISO RFID Working Group to adopt the ONIX coding scheme for media format(see 2.5.8), which is widely supported by BISG (Book Industry Study Group) in the United States. The
MARC Media Format data element is excluded from use in the U.S.
Properties: Excluded

2.5.10 Supplier IdentifierThis data object is designed to uniquely identify the supplier of the material in question. It consists of a
supplier name, address, and postal code (or SAN (ANSI/NISO Z39.43)). Its definition is to be agreed
between the supplier and the library.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Locking notrecommended

N/A

2.5.11 Order NumberThis data object contains the library’s order number against which the item was purchased.
2

EDItEUR. ONIX for Books Code Lists. Available from: http://www.editeur.org/14/Code-Lists/
Note: List 7, Product form code, and List 150, Product form, have 111 codes in common. List 7 has 10 codes notincluded in List 150 and List 150 has 13 codes not included in List 7. According to EDItEUR, List 7 should suffice for
RFID applications and it is the list recommended by the ISO 28560 Standard.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

14

Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable Length

Unlocked if used

N/A

2.5.12 ILL Borrowing Institution
This element is used to identify the borrowing institution in an ILL transaction.
The coding scheme should be identical to the owner library/institution described in Section 2.5.4, exceptthat this data object is always unlocked.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length not to exceed 16
bytes with formatting, as
specified in 2.5.4 above

Unlocked if used

Encoded according to
special rules defined in
ISO 28560-2

2.5.13 ILL Transaction ID
In addition to the ILL Borrowing Institution data element (see 2.5.13), there is an additional data elementthat will facilitate the tracking of ILL transactions. In interlibrary loan transactions. In the U.S., the process
generally has the following steps:
a. The library customer or patron identifies some material that s/he wishes to borrow, and works
with library staff to arrange for an ILL search.
b. The library staff at the borrowing library use ILL management software to access a catalog ofitems owned by other libraries, and select some candidate lending libraries for the item. The
ILL management software generates an ILL transaction identifier, often a numeric identifier ofseven or eight digits.
c.

The ILL management software initiates contact with the first candidate lending institution,
requesting a loan of the item, identified bibliographically.

d. The candidate lender looks at the request and, if it is able to fill it, responds affirmatively. If it
is not able to fill the request, it responds negatively and the ILL management software sends
the request to the next candidate lending institution on the list.
e. When a candidate lender indicates that it can source the item, the ILL management software
stores a record and generates an ILL slip containing the transaction identifier, thebibliographic identifier, the borrowing library information, the lending library information, andthe patron information. The ILL slip accompanies the item as it travels from the lending libraryto the borrowing institution.
f.

When the borrowing library receives the item, it generally creates a temporary record on its
integrated library system (ILS), using a “dummy” or temporary item identifier. The library uses
bibliographic information from the ILL management software to populate the record.

g. The library patron is notified and picks up the item, which is sometimes packaged in a bag orwith an attached slip, but which has the dummy item identifier attached in some way.
h. At the end of the loan, the patron returns the item to the borrowing library, which notes on thetemporary record that the item is returned, and sends it back to the lending library.
The one common piece of data between the borrowing library and the lending library is the ILL
Transaction ID, generated by the ILL management software system. All other data regarding the ILL
transaction can be obtained from the ILL slip or through management software, based on that ILL
transaction identifier.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

15

It is feasible (and desirable) that, in the future, an ILL Transaction ID could be read electronically andused to automatically update a temporary ILS record with data regarding the item and transaction,
eliminating part of the manual labor associated with the transaction and reducing costs.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length – expected to be
9 digits

Unlocked if used

N/A

2.5.14 GS1 Identifier (includes ISBN)The ISBN (International Standard Book Number) is assigned to a monographic publication by designatedagencies in each country participating in the program. The field may include terms of availability andcancelled or invalid ISBNs. In the MARC21 format for bibliographic records, this data is contained in 020
tag subfield a ($a).
The GS1 Code is more popularly understood in the United States as the UCC Code, and commonly seen
in retail outlets in a bar code format. This includes the encoding of the ISBN, with the prefix '978', andmore recently ‘979’. Since January 2007, the ISBN has formally changed from being a 10-digit code(sometimes with an X check character) into a 13-digit code, as represented in the GS1-13 barcode.
The GS1 product identifier data element shall, if encoded, be used to store the GTIN-13 code of GS1).
The Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) is a code that identifies the product – not the individual item.
The GTIN-13 has 13 digits and is commonly seen on retail products in a bar code format and is (without
the check digit) also an element of tags used in retail that follow the electronic product code scheme of
GS1 / EPC Global. The GTIN-13 code is commonly called the UPC code) in the United States, and inother parts of the world it is known as the EAN-13 code).
The GTIN–13 code includes the encoding of:•

the ISBN, with the prefixes '978' and ‘979’;•

the ISSN with the prefix ‘977’;•

the ISMN with the prefix ‘979'.

The GS1 code is applied to various other media products, including CDs, DVDs, and some periodical
publications and music. There is a scheme for linking the ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) for
serial publications to the GS1 code with the prefix ‘977’. There is also a scheme that links the ISMN
(International Standard Music Number) for printed music to the GS1 code with the prefix ‘979’, sharedwith the ISBN.
The code structure for CDs, DVDs, and other products without formal registration code structures follow
conventional GS1 rules. This means that for many products that originate in the U.S. the code might need
to be expanded with leading zeros to conform to the 13-digit structure. Codes on products from mostother countries use the full 13-digit structure. Encoding everything in a 13-digit structure is importantbecause the final digit is a check digit that may be used for validation processes in some systems (seeSection D.3.5 of Appendix D).
Since the GS1 code does identify the specific material to which the tag is attached, its existence on the
tag while the item is circulating represents a possible privacy risk. Libraries are encouraged to consider
the risks and benefits of populating this data element at different points in the life cycle of the item when
determining whether to use the data element, and whether to lock it in tag memory.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

16

Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length – expected to be
13 digits

Locking optional

N/A

2.5.15 Alternative Unique Item Identifier
The Alternative Unique Item Identifier is a reserved field awaiting definition in a future release of ISO
28560. While it is shown as optional, it shall be used only after it is defined by revisions to the ISO 28560
family.
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Locking notrecommended

N/A

2.5.16 Local Data A
As previously stated, the NISO RFID Working Group felt that it was important to allow some local
flexibility in the data model. The local data object is designed to do just that. No specification is provided
for this object. This allows libraries to code one or more fields in a format of their choice to support
functions that may be thought of in the future. There is no external application of this data object, so thelibrary may use it exactly as it chooses.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Locking optional

N/A

2.5.17 Local Data B
A second data object, similar to Local Data A.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Locking optional

N/A

2.5.18 Title
This element is the title of the library item.
Since the Title does identify the material to which the tag is attached, its existence on the tag while theitem is circulating represents a possible privacy risk. Libraries are encouraged to consider the risks andbenefits of populating this data element at different points in the life cycle of the item when determining
whether to use the data element, and whether to lock it in tag memory.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length – no maximum
length specified, though the
expected length is 32 bytes

Locking optional

N/A

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

17

2.5.19 Product Identifier (alternative)
An identifier of a product not linked to the individual item and not based on the GS1 codes.
This other product identifier data element may be used for items that do not have a GS1 code, or forwhich the GS1 code is not known or not adequate. This enables information systems linked to various
code structures to be supported by the RFID system.
Since the Product Identifier does identify the specific material to which the tag is attached, its existenceon the tag while the item is circulating represents a possible privacy risk. The library user is encouraged
to consider the risks and benefits of populating this data element at different points in the life cycle of theitem when determining whether to use the data element, and whether to lock it in tag memory.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Locking optional

N/A

2.5.20 Media Format (other)
This data object is used to specify the format of the media being circulated.
The NISO RFID Working Group recommends utilizing the media format codes from the ONIX for Books
Code List produced by EDItEUR in the ONIX Media Format element (see 2.5.8). However, Media Format(other) is also part of the ISO 28560 standard, to be used for any coding other than ONIX or MARC.
If Media Format (other) is used, the data element coding is defined locally by the system.
Should a system elect to utilize Media Format (other), it is important that its definition be consistent withany other Media Format data elements encoded on the tag, such as the ONIX data element. Populationof multiple media format data elements is not recommended, as they must not conflict with each other,and this may be a difficult task.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Fixed length of 1 byte

Locking optional

N/A

2.5.21 Supply Chain StageAs explained in Section 5, the NISO RFID Working Group expects that RFID tags will eventually beplaced on the books during the manufacturing process prior to library distribution, and therefore has
endeavored to make the data model adaptable enough to function throughout the supply chain, shouldthat become a reality. As an example, it is conceivable that an RFID tag would be placed on a book by its
manufacturer, then used by the publisher, followed by the book jobber, and finally by the library. However,at least in the U.S., there is no coordinated effort to make this happen. At this point it is only a hope.
Though some members of the Working Group have embraced this cause in earnest and are taking steps
to discuss this possibility with upstream members of the supply chain, the standards they are participatingin are, at the moment, only applicable to libraries. Even the international effort to synchronize the data
model across nations goes under the title: Information and documentation – RFID in Libraries(ISO 28560).
At this point, the requirements of other parties in the supply chain are not known. Different uses of the tag
at different points in the supply chain or the lifecycle of the tag would require different data objects to be
stored on the tag. Our focus is on the library application. Our general recommendation is that the data
objects, where appropriate, be left unlocked so that there is the possibility of broader use of the tag. Thisdata model is designed in a manner that does not preclude its use in other stages of the supply chain.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

18

To make this desire more explicit, the NISO RFID Working Group has developed a “Supply Chain Stage”
data object on the tag to allow different data to exist on the same tag at different stages in the life cycle,
and to make it clear to an RFID application system what data may be expected on the tag at a particulartime in its life. The data element has also been included in the ISO 28560 family. The “stage” data object
corresponds to the stages of the tag’s lifecycle. At each stage, the users of that particular stage candefine different optional elements to reside on the tag.
The following stages in the supply chain have been identified:•manufacturer (use data object value = 16)•

publisher (use data object value = 24)•

distributor (use data object value = 32)•

jobber (use data object value = 48)•

library (use data object value = 64)

Initially, the NISO RFID Working Group thought that this data object should be mandatory. However, after
discussions with several individuals, the Working Group decided not to include this data object as a partof the mandatory set, but rather make it optional. This decision would address the needs of international
library communities and yet keep the door open for any communications and negotiations with othermembers of the U.S. supply chain.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Fixed length of 1 byte withvalues shown above(Other values may be added
later but must be specified by
NISO.)

Unlocked if used

N/A

2.5.22 Supplier Invoice NumberThis data object contains the supplier’s invoice number against which the item was paid.
Properties: Excluded

2.5.23 Alternate Item ID
The Alternate Item ID (not necessarily a unique ID) is assigned when parties involved with an item deem
it necessary to have an item identifier which cannot be accommodated by the Primary Item ID. An
example may be during the acquisition process, when the element might be used by the supplier andlibrary to identify the material being delivered to the library. It should not be the ISBN, as this would be
coded in the GS1 product identifier field. In this example, this number has application (or meaning) only tothe supplier and is used to return items to the supplier.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length – alphanumeric
data with expected length of 16
bytes

Locking optional

N/A

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

19

2.5.24 Alternative Owner Institution
This element is used to identify the owning institution in the event that an ISIL compliant identifier is notavailable. When necessary, it should be used instead of the Owner Institution data element; it is not to be
used in addition to that data element.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Locking optional
If a library anticipates afuture assignment of an
ISIL code, it may bebeneficial to leave thisdata element unlocked.

N/A

2.5.25 Subsidiary of an Owner LibraryThis element is used to identify ownership by a particular subsidiary or branch of the owning institution.
When necessary, it should be used in addition to the Owner Institution data element or the Alternative
Owner Institution; it is not to be used independently from one of those data elements.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Locking optional

N/A

2.5.26 Alternative ILL Borrowing Institution
This element is used to identify the borrowing institution in an ILL transaction, in the event that an ISIL
compliant identifier is not available.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Unlocked if used

N/A

2.5.27 Local Data C
A third data object, similar to Local Data A.
Properties:
Requirement

Fixed or Variable

Locked?

Encoding

Optional

Variable length

Unlocked if used

N/A

2.6

Relative OID

Each data object on the tag has a unique identifier (UID). Instead of using the entire identifier, it is more
economical to use the relative object identifier (OID). The NISO RFID Working Group found a good
explanation of relative OIDs in the work done by the Standards Australia Working Group. Their
explanation describes relative OID and includes a rationale for the 14 elements on the OID:

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

20

In order to conserve space on the RFID tag, only relative object identifiers (OID) are stored byuse of the data formatter which is part of the ISO/IEC 15962 standard. The relative OID refers to
the final node of the object identifier and assumes that all of the previous nodes in the object
identifier are the same for every object, which will be true in the case of all RFID tags used within
the library application. A useful analogy to aid understanding of this would be the physicaladdress of an apartment block. Once the Country, State, City, Street Name, and Street Number
are known, a single apartment number then identifies every individual apartment. For a known
address, the apartment numbers could be considered as relative identifiers for each occupant
and indeed are used as such by the tenants, for example “Mr. Smith in apartment 6”, and so on.
Within the apartment building, it is not necessary to use the full form of the address.
Using relative object identifiers in the range from 1 to 14 ensures that the relative OID’s are
encoded efficiently as part of the precursor octet (see ISO/IEC 15962 – section 8.3, Data
3
Formatting for more detail).
The use of relative object identifiers in the range from 15-127 requires an additional byte of overhead in
the data element, so typically these OID values are used on data elements which are expected to be
encoded less frequently.
This object identifier structure involves the use of Application Family Identifier (AFI) and Data Storage
Format Identifier (DSFID) codes programmed into the tags. Think of the AFI and DSFID codes asproviding the street address in the above example, with the relative OID providing the apartment number.
The OID assignments utilized in this document are governed by ISO 28560-2.

2.7

Data Format (DSFID) Declaration

The data storage format identifier (DSFID) value 6 (xxx00110b) has been assigned by ISO for library use
when a tag is encoded according to ISO 28560-2. In addition to declaring that the tag conforms to ISO
28560-2 encoding, this value also confirms the access method. See ISO 28560-2 for additional
information.

2.8

Encoding

Discussions of data models naturally turn to encoding fairly quickly. One of the benefits of the
ISO/IEC 15962 specification is that it allows the discussion of data objects to move up a level ofabstraction above the point where encoding is important. ISO/IEC 15962 specifies methods forcompacting different types of data efficiently into objects for storage in tag memory, and then for
expanding that data back out of the tag and into formats useful at the application level.
For example, say one library uses a 14-digit numeric barcode as the item identifier, as many libraries doin the U.S. ISO/IEC 15962 suggests that this might be recognized as an integer and stored efficiently on
the tag using between 3 and 4 bits per digit (up to around 50 bits for a 14-digit integer, encoded in 6-7
bytes). Imagine another library using a 12-character alphanumeric item identifier using digits 0-9 andcharacters A-Z. In this case, the identifier can be characterized as uppercase/numeric and stored
efficiently on the tag using 6 bits per character for a total of 72 bits (9 bytes). In each case, there is some
object definition overhead that is also stored on the tag to identify the data objects and to tell how they are
stored.
The important part of this is that it allows different libraries to correctly interpret tag data that is efficiently
encoded without applying a rigid standard on exactly how the encoding is to be done. ISO/IEC 15962
allows encoding of numeric, alphanumeric, ISO/IEC 8859-1, and UTF-8, which should cover most all
encoding requirements for U.S. libraries. The corresponding fields on different tags might even be

3Standards Australia Working Group IT-091-01-02. RFID for Libraries: Proposal for a Library RFID Data Model (Draft
06). Nunawading, VI: Sybis, September 2006, pp. 10-11. Available from: http://www.sybis.com.au/Sybis/4n597599%20proposal%20document.pdf Quoted material reproduced with permission.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

21

encoded differently within the same library based on individual item characteristics, resulting again in themost efficient encoding while maintaining a good system design.
Appendix D shows details on the encoding scheme standardized in ISO 28560-2.

2.9

Use of Primary IDs and Supply Chain Stages

As previously stated, the level of interoperability anticipated in this model would permit the same RFID
tags to be employed at any point in the supply chain—whether embedded at manufacture of the item,
applied in distribution, or used by the jobber. The advantages of this interoperability have been describedin Section 5, and while the data model proposed should work for all uses, there is a caution related to theunique item identifier (UII) that must be specifically addressed.
At whatever stage in the supply chain RFID is applied for item-level processing, the UII is a mandatory
and critical data object. But it is important to note that, even if it is imagined that the same tags could beapplied at any stage of use, it is not to be expected that the same identifier will be employed at every
stage as items transfer from one stage of the supply chain to the next. For example, a book distributor
may track inventory via item-level RFID using EPC codes as Primary Item IDs. A jobber may then receivefrom this distributor tagged books that the jobber must then process for the library use—processing that
includes recording library-specified data to the RFID tags.
In order for item-level RFID tags to be usable throughout the supply chain, including in retail or library
operations, the NISO RFID Working Group recommends the following:•

Primary Item ID must always be mandatory. This data is essential for the RFID applications towork correctly.

•

Primary Item ID data object in stages of the supply chain other than the library must be left
unlocked. This will allow users further along the supply chain to apply their own identifiers,
whereas if this field is locked only those users sharing the database to which the IDs areassociated can make use of the tags. It is also thought that concerns about vandalism—
deliberate alteration or removal of identifiers on tags—are of far less concern at the earlier stagesof the supply chain, where items are less exposed to the public. Concerns about accidental
alteration or removal of IDs can be addressed by the use of UIDs to back up tag data. If thisprecautionary approach is followed, in the library stage the link between the UID and Primary
Item ID is possible. However, in earlier stages it is not essential, so in those stages the UID may
act as the only identifier.

•Primary Item ID data object in “library” stage may be locked. In library settings where items are
made accessible to the public, the Primary Item ID field may be locked as an additional
precaution against vandalism or accidental alteration or erasure. See section 2.4.1 for additional
details.

•

All optional data objects in upstream use stages should be left unlocked. As with Primary Item ID,
the data recorded on the tag at one use stage may not be required or desired at subsequent
stages.

•Due to privacy concerns and to reduce the size of the tags required, it is recommended that tags
that might have originated in an earlier stage of the supply chain be reprogrammed for use inlibraries. For example, an ISBN that might be useful earlier in the supply chain may become aprivacy issue if it remains on a library tag. Therefore, these tags should be blanked out by thelibrary or jobber and reprogrammed with contents the library needs and wants, in accordance withthe model.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

22

Section 3: Security
3.1

RFID Security for Libraries

There are several approaches available for securing library items using RFID, each with its own
advantages and drawbacks. These approaches include dedicated electronic article surveillance (EAS)
implementations, application family identifier (AFI) byte implementations, and virtual deactivation(database look-up) implementations.
Each of these security methods has different characteristics for speed of detection, reliability of detection,and susceptibility to tampering.
A great number of variables affect the characteristics of all RFID security systems, including:•width between security gates,•

number of items simultaneously exiting the library,•multiple item sets where the tags are placed very close to one another (and the security marker
may not be set properly on each item in the set at check out),•material of which the items are made,•DVDs, CDs & other items with metallic content in close proximity to the RFID tags,•

size of the RFID tags,•

tuning of the antennas on the hardware that interacts with the RFID tags,•

electro-magnetic interference caused by nearby devices and equipment,•orientation of the tags in the portal, and•whether the system supports multiple security methods.

The characteristics of different systems in terms of speed, reliability, and security are part of the
manufacturer specifications, with standards focusing on interoperability. It is important for any RFID
standard for libraries to focus on the key requirements for interoperability while allowing for differences
between solutions that foster healthy competition in the marketplace, and to allow for the development of
more advanced solutions as technology evolves.
The following sections describe three methods of security for library items using RFID.

3.2

Application Family Identifier (AFI)

Application Family Identifier (AFI) is a hardware feature designed into the silicon chip on ISO/IEC 18000-3
Mode 1 RFID tags. The purpose of AFI is to prevent tags from different industry applications frominterfering with each other in the open environment. AFI is a special purpose register in a dedicatedportion of the memory of an RFID tag. The register is 8 bits in length and two hexadecimal symbols canbe used to describe the bit pattern. The hardware design of the tag allows modifying the behavior of a tag
by programming this register. Specifically, the programming of an ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 compliant tagwith a particular AFI code dictates that the tag will respond only when an interrogating reader system
requests a response from tags with that AFI code. This facilitates both security implementations andseparation of applications.
Security implementations based on AFI require that a particular code be programmed in the AFI registerof tags on library items that are checked into the collection. The portal at the library exit interrogates its
surroundings for any tags with that AFI code. Tags with this code in the AFI register respond with theirunique identifier, and tags with other codes in their AFI registers do not respond.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

23

The following subsections outline the fundamental elements required to facilitate interoperability, whileallowing for multiple security methods for RFID in the library industry.

3.3

AFI Codes and Interoperability

To facilitate real interoperability, all libraries should be utilizing standardized tag protocols. ISO/IEC
18000-3 Mode 1 is the tag standard most widely used in libraries at this point, and this standard supports
AFI.
To further facilitate interoperability, all library RFID systems, regardless of security method, should use
the two AFI codes authorized by ISO for use by libraries for library items. This facilitates interoperability
with other applications.
As defined in ISO 28560-1, one of these codes (C2)HEX is the official assignment for the library industry
and should be used on items that are checked out and circulating in the open environment, whether or
not AFI is used for security. The use of this code will provide for application separation so that librarymaterials do not interfere with other non-library applications. The other code (07)HEX should be used onlibrary items that are checked into the library and that are being secured by systems utilizing AFI for
security.
Systems that use AFI for security should use both of the assigned codes as appropriate, while systems
using EAS or database look-up for security should use the library industry code to avoid interference withother applications of RFID.

3.3.1

AFI Locking

Locking is a hardware feature available on most ISO RFID tags that allows a tag programmer to make thecontents of a portion of a tag’s memory permanent so that it cannot be modified. In some designs the lockmay be reversed using a password, while in other cases, permanent really means permanent. In general,locking protects against accidental or malicious modification of tag contents.
All library RFID systems should utilize design practices that do not limit the library’s options for the future.
Specifically, AFI codes on tags for use in library items, even when programmed by systems that do not
utilize AFI for security, should be left unlocked, allowing for later modification should the library wish to
use AFI for security in the future.

3.3.2

Interlibrary Loan Situations

Interlibrary loan, for this discussion, refers to the borrowing of library items that belong to another librarysystem. It does not refer to inter-branch borrowing within a multi-branch library system.
Systems should be designed so that should an AFI code or EAS bit be changed during an interlibraryloan event; they will seamlessly reprogram the AFI code or EAS bit on the item back to the original setting
upon its return to the owning library. The burden for this reprogramming lies on the system that checks
the item back in to the owning library, but in any event, the owning library should not have the burden of
any reformatting of the data elements altered by the borrowing library.

3.3.2.1 Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS)
Traditional electronic article surveillance (EAS) architectures, as seen in many retail applications, arebased on radio frequency (RF) tags rather than RFID tags. These systems employ a tag that resonates
when excited by an exit gate. The resonance can then be sensed by the gate, which in turn generates analarm.
The EAS concept has been introduced to some RFID tags. A difference, however, is that rather than asimple resonance, the tag responds with a short burst signal or short data transmission.
This kind of EAS technology is built into some, but not all, ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 compliant tag
designs as a proprietary add-on feature. This technology typically provides a tag with a one-bit register,
programmable on or off, which determines the tag’s response to an EAS command from an interrogator.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT24

In the context of library item security, the gates positioned just inside the exit act as the interrogators. Ifthey detect any tags whose EAS bit is set to “on,” they generate an alarm.
EAS security methods do have some benefits over AFI implementations, in some cases offering longer
detection range, higher speed of detection, and increased protection against tampering.
As mentioned earlier, EAS implementations are typically proprietary. As such, it is likely that detection
systems using EAS detection methods, designed for use with RFID tag silicon from one manufacturer, will
not provide security on items with tags from a different silicon manufacturer. Nonetheless, by adhering to
the interoperability guidelines in Section 2, the system designer can ensure interoperability for
identification and non-interference in other library RFID implementations.

3.3.2.2 Virtual Deactivation (Database Look-Up)
The virtual deactivation, or database look-up, method consists of reading an ISO tag’s unique identifier
and looking up the security status of that item in a database table. The method is not limited to ISO tags,
but is applied to ISO tags in the context of the Working Group’s goals for interoperability.
Essentially, database look-up systems maintain a database of the identifiers of items that are checked inor out of the library. They employ techniques that interrogate their surroundings for any relevant tags,
read the identifiers from those tags, and look them up on the database to determine the items’ check-out
status. These systems then generate an alarm when they determine that an item that is not checked out
has passed through the detection system.
Database look-up is generally based on reading the ISO tag unique identifier (UID). This is the 64-bit
unique identifier programmed in all ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 Integrated Circuits (ICs), by the IC
manufacturers.
The UID is programmed by an IC manufacturer and doesn’t require tag programming for the security
feature. The only requirement is for the ISO tag reader to capture the UID (which it already does as a partof its normal processing) and pass it to the security system, which then determines the security status of
the tag, which is stored in a database look-up table.

3.3.2.3 Recommendations for Security
By accepting the simple guidelines outlined below, a library purchasing a compliant RFID system fromany vendor should have an interoperable system to the following extent:•

The system will cause no interference with other applications.

•

The system will utilize ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 tags programmed so that they should work for
identification of items in other libraries.

•

The system will use tags that can be used for security in some but not all other libraries.

•

The system will use tags that will not interfere with the operation of security systems in otherlibraries.

Refer to the table in Appendix B for an additional summary of interoperability characteristics.
AFI would appear to be the best choice for implementing a standard security solution for the library familyof applications for the following reasons.
•

It is already a mandatory part of the ISO standards—all ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 compliant tags
and readers must support this command.

•

It allows libraries to purchase systems from different vendors, still permitting them to sharematerials through interlibrary loan and providing security for the item in the borrowing library.

•

It allows a library to purchase tags from different ISO-compliant tag suppliers.

•

It provides an efficient process for security.

•

It can be implemented and still allow for other security methods.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

25

•

It provides a filter, such that all library systems will only process tags that belong to the family of
library applications.

AFI enables systems that use different methods to process security information to coexist and facilitatesinteroperability, vendor differentiation, and competition.
Systems that feature different security methods are able to operate in AFI based systems. This is an
aspect of the AFI element being a mandatory part of the ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 standard. It enables
the AFI method of security to be used in AFI based systems, regardless of the chosen security method fora particular system. Refer to Appendix B for interoperability characteristics.
This Working Group recommends an approach to standardization in security for RFID in Libraries that
does not lock a compliant system into any single one of the possibilities outlined, but promotes security asa place for differentiation between vendors.
This can be done in a way which provides interoperability and which does not force reliance on any
particular proprietary security architecture. The NISO RFID Working Group further recommends that theguidelines for interoperability outlined in Section 2 be adopted to ensure that interoperability of item
identification between systems is maintained. Please note that:•An ISO library system’s security function can interoperate with any other ISO system byspecifying a standard implementation for security using the AFI byte.

•

The AFI byte should be standardized to define a tag as belonging to the family called “library
applications.”•

The AFI byte should be selected for standardizing security, because it is a mandatory ISO
command and all ISO readers must support the command to be compliant.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

26

Section 4: Library Migration to ISO Standard Tags
4.1

Introduction

Libraries with existing RFID installations are unlikely to be compliant with all the data requirements of the
new standard. While most tags purchased today and in recent years are in compliance with ISO 18000-3
Mode 1, vendors have historically used proprietary approaches to encoding data on the tags. In otherwords, even if two installations use ISO 18000-3 Mode 1 compatible tags and readers, they may not beable to interoperate since the data at each respective site may be encoded differently. Think about goingto a bookstore and selecting a book in a language you cannot read. While you may be able to recognize
the letters and see words and paragraphs, you cannot decipher the actual meaning of the text. Defining astandard data model for encoding is the problem that ISO 28560 intends to address. The question now iswhether a site with existing tags and equipment can successfully migrate to an ISO 28560 compliant
solution. Theoretically, if a library uses ISO 18000-3 Mode 1 compliant tags, readers, and other hardware,such a migration may be possible. However, issues like whether the data on the existing tags are locked
and what sort of model is in place for security will affect migration. While the prospect of migrating fromproprietary to standardized systems can be daunting, with some careful planning and a goodunderstanding of an organization’s goals and existing components, the labor and disruption involved canbe minimized. Over time, thanks to a uniform standard, libraries will be able to operate with equipmentfrom multiple vendors and suppliers.
Some of the pros and cons of upgrading or migrating to a standard should be recognized here. First,
some of the pros:•

Interoperability between libraries: This is a primary goal of the standardization activities. Libraries
want to be able to read tags that are affixed to items owned by other libraries and that in manycases were programmed by systems produced by other vendors. By upgrading systems to
support standards and by migrating tag data into standard formats, this kind of library–to-libraryinteroperability can be achieved.

•

Supply stream interoperability: A standard data model will make it much less expensive for
distributors who offer pre-processing, and an easier option for publishers and other supply stream
elements to consider.

•

Good citizenship: The AFI on an RFID tag is a means of ensuring that the application of RFID in
the library industry does not interfere with RFID uses in other areas, and vice versa. To be goodelectronic citizens, all implementers should make sure that they are ISO compliant and using an
officially assigned AFI code. The codes are referred to in Section 3.2.

•

Equipment replacement: This is the other aspect of interoperability. Libraries are concerned about
the future value of their investments, and are resistant to the concept of being locked to aparticular vendor based on past choices. By migrating tag data formats to a standard, in the
future, when equipment upgrades and expansions are considered, the library may select andeven mix and match components from standards-compliant system vendors. This is a benefit
because it encourages competition, drives innovation, and reduces the need for compromises by
the library.

And some of the cons:•

Information about tag formatting is public: Standards and data models are, by their nature, public
documents. Other sections of this document describe how a sufficiently informed or clever vandal
or thief might use an RFID reader to vandalize tags or to steal an item from a library. There is a
finite risk in migrating to a standard and therefore to a publicly available data format. However,this is only an incremental difference from the proprietary data formats, which, unless truly
encrypted, are generally not difficult to decipher for a technically oriented individual with an RFID
reader.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

27

•

Labor requirements: There will be some labor requirement for a migration to any new data modelsuch as the one described here. There will be work involved in equipment upgrades and, where
personnel are employed to reprogram tags, that will consume staff time as well. The labor
required for a migration can be minimized through thoughtful planning, and many vendors offer
services to assist with this process.

•

System performance: During a migration period, when systems will need to deal with two tag data
formats, there will be some small but perhaps noticeable performance reductions in different
pieces of equipment. For example, if a security gate must run two security protocols in alternatingfashion, perhaps for a second or so (probably less) for each protocol, the overall rate of detection
will be reduced.

•

Upgrade costs: There is always a cost associated with changing equipment and software, andhow this cost is absorbed by the industry will probably vary from vendor to vendor and library to
library.

Most standards activities undertaken today on a global basis are suggesting that these tags are a good
choice for interoperability. If the systems used to program the tags for use in the library have anticipated afuture migration, then there are strategies that a library can use to move toward standards that are
adopted by the industry. Here are some important considerations to enable this migration:•

In the past, most tags offered were proprietary, which presents scenarios in which tags cannot be
reprogrammed. Compliance with the recommended model in this document should ensure theuse of the tags over the lifetime of the item, avoiding purchase of new tags in the future. To
increase the likelihood that migration and future operability will be maintained, the tags should not
be locked, thus reprogrammable. Most ISO tags are programmable many times, but if the
programming system is configured to lock the contents of the tag after programming, then they
are no longer programmable. Systems vendors and libraries can work together to ensure that
there is a path forward for libraries by leaving systems open for forward migration. For more
information, see Section 2.4.

•

It is possible for newer RFID systems to recognize or be made to recognize multiple tag data
formats. It is not necessary for libraries to convert overnight to support a new standard, but it isprudent to ensure that equipment upgrades are made before tags are reprogrammed so that theuser experience is maintained without excessive errors, etc.

4.2

Compatibility

Many libraries over the past several years have purchased tags conforming to ISO standards with thehope that this would make the tags interoperable with systems in use in other libraries. While ISOstandard RFID tags conforming to ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 are compatible with multiple vendor systems
at the most basic hardware level, sometimes referred to as the air interface. The air interface is thecommunication protocol between the tag and readers. Different vendors store the data on the tags indifferent ways.
Libraries that are not concerned about interoperability or have collections that are not shared may notconsider migration as an important requirement. For libraries desiring migration to a standardized system,
the issues are more complex.
Libraries with previously installed RFID systems need to establish two features of their system with their
suppliers and vendors:•

Issue 1: Whether the RFID tags and readers are compliant with the ISO 18000-3, Mode
1standard, and can comply with Parts 1 and 2 of ISO 28560 as recommended in this document.

•

Issue 2: Whether the Integrated Library System can interpret and use the new standard data
model.

•

Issue 3: If the tag data format is partially or completely locked, the tag may not be
reprogrammable to conform to the standard.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

28

Some of the RFID tags in use in libraries today are compatible with ISO 28560 and ISO/IEC 18000-3
Mode 1, and some are not. Specific questions about compatibility should be directed toward a library’s
RFID vendor. But there are some general characteristics about compatibility that the library should
understand for purposes of functionality.
First, it is not possible to upgrade a proprietary tag hardware design to an ISO 18000-3 Mode 1 tag
design via reprogramming. ISO tag and proprietary tag designs use different silicon chips. Proprietary tag
designs generally do not include features such as the application family identifier feature, though they
may include additional capabilities such as security features, password protection, etc., which are notcovered by current standards.
Second, it may not be possible to reprogram a proprietary RFID tag to comply with the standard.
Depending on the vendor, it may be possible to reprogram a proprietary tag to store bits like the newstandard tag. The capability of different systems to deal with this situation will vary, so the return on suchan effort may well not be worth the investment, but it does fall within the scope of possibilities.
Third, libraries that have collections with proprietary tags should not despair of being conformant tostandards. Depending on the level of functionality desired, libraries can have a mix of compliant and noncompliant tags. A library with an existing collection tagged with proprietary tags could decide to switch to
standardized tags and formats for their future acquisitions, and over time their collection would become
predominantly and perhaps completely standard compliant. A library RFID vendor should be able toprovide systems that would read multiple types of RFID tags and formats in the same library.

4.3

Role of RFID Vendor

The library should expect that their vendor(s) would monitor standards activity and will plan, develop, andoffer market solutions that comply with the standards. It may be necessary to make hardware upgrades toexisting equipment in the library if that equipment does not work with standardized RFID tags. It is also
likely that software upgrades will be required on equipment in the library even if the library is alreadyusing standardized tags such as those specified in ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1. This software will support
the new way that data will be stored on tags to conform to a standard, and probably will need to support
the old way of storing the data as well, at least during the migration period. Configuration changes may berequired in security gates, moving from one type of security protocol to another, or, in the case of AFI for
security, perhaps from one code to another.

4.4

Role of Integrated Library System Vendor

As the industry adopts the new standards, the library who is ready to migrate, either wholly or over time,
will also need to coordinate and discuss changes to tag programming with their ILS vendor and other
RFID solutions vendors to ensure that the data necessary for use with the new model is available to eachof the applications involved in the initial programming of tags and the circulation and processing of items.
This may involve changes to the communication protocols used by these systems, such as NCIP and
SIP2, to ensure the availability of relevant data and the accurate mapping of fields. Ideally changes tothese protocols will be built into future developments of those standards, but interim localized tweaks by
ILS and RFID vendors may be needed until that happens.

4.5

Suggested Migration Process

4.5.1

Migration Considerations

The need to migrate and the scope and speed of migration will depend on a number of factors, including
ratio of new items to established items, and the amount of conformity with the current system. A step-bystep migration path to a fully standard system can be developed with the assistance of your library
vendor. Many vendors already have some experience in this area, and can make some recommendations
for a smooth transition process.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

29

During the transition, most libraries will experience a period during which the collections contain bothlegacy RFID tags and new tags that reflect the new standards and will be running with “mixed” tag
environments.
There are several processes that can be used for migration. If existing tags can be reprogrammed, mostlibrary tag migrations will involve both “on the fly” (see 4.5.2) and “systematic” (see 4.5.3) changes invarying proportions.

4.5.2

On-the-fly Migration

An on-the-fly migration of tags refers to one where the tags are reprogrammed to a standard data format
during some activity that is already happening to the item, such as during a circulation operation.
There are several devices that can be used for reprogramming tags in this kind of migration, including self
check-out devices, staff workstation devices, and automated check-in devices. Tag reprogramming canbe done on check-out or on check-in, and can be done automatically by the equipment involved. For the
least impact on perceived system performance, it is worth considering reprogramming tags during checkin operations, when the patron is less impacted by the additional time considerations involved with adding
this process. For example, if your library system uses self service check-out, and an automated sortation
system for check-in, you might consider having the self check-out station recognize both the newstandard tag data format and the old proprietary format, but have the sorting system reprogram
proprietary-encoded tags to meet the standard upon item return. In this way, the patron is not burdenedby any errors or performance penalties that may arise were the self check-out station to attempt toreprogram the tags on a stack of items, and the sorting system can separate out any items that do not
successfully reprogram for staff intervention. It may still be necessary to go out into the collection,
perhaps with a handheld reader, to find infrequently circulating items that have not been reprogrammed
after a time period following the start of the migration. You may also need to schedule more time and staff
to perform or monitor those check-in functions during this time period. This process will catch items thatare most in circulation without having to place holds on popular items to change the tag programming. It
will not catch all items, and it may take a long time to reprogram less popular items, if it is your only
approach to migration.

4.5.3

Systematic Migration

A systematic tag migration refers to one where the tags are reprogrammed using a deliberate process ofmoving through the stacks with a reprogramming device, operating on each item.
In this scenario, the library might go into the stacks using a reader, which could be used at the location of
the items on the shelf to reprogram the tags to the new standard format, or they might systematicallyremove groups of items from shelves to reprogram at a desktop station, or they might place holds on
popular items to reprogram them as they were trapped. At the same time, it would be important toquarantine any returned materials to ensure that no proprietary data format tags are introduced into
recently migrated sections of the collection. These returned materials would need to be migrated before
reshelving. It is probable a mixed approach would speed the migration, especially since some materials
circulate less frequently.
It is probable that a systematic migration would require more labor to implement, yet it is quite likely that it
would take less calendar time than the on-the-fly method. It is recommended that a mixed approach beused to expedite the process. Libraries will also need to make individual choices about particular
processes. For instance, a library that does a lot of interlibrary loan will probably want to consider
reprogramming a proprietary format tag to a standard format at the start of the ILL to help the borrowing
institution.
In both the on-the-fly and systematic scenarios, it is important to have all of the RFID equipment in thelibrary upgraded to handle both proprietary and standard formats seamlessly prior to migrating the firsttag. This will require close work between the library, the RFID vendor, and the ILS to ensure that themethod of migration planned will be supported by the upgrades available. For instance, in the on-the-fly
example indicated above, things will break down rather quickly if the check-in and sortation system does
not support reprogramming of tags, or if it is not capable of reprogramming major classes of items such

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT30

as disk media due to the characteristics of the tags and the fact that programming distances are shorter
than read distances.

4.6

Questions for RFID Vendors

Libraries considering purchase of an RFID system in the near future should be asking their vendors to
explain their compliance with standards, and lacking that, their planned migration path and to tell how theconfiguration of the equipment will allow forward compatibility with this Recommended Practice. Migrationplans and methods should be discussed. The most important aspect of this conversation is that the libraryshould feel confident in the end that their investment in RFID is solid and that they will be able to use it for
years into the future.
It is strongly recommended that libraries only implement systems that meet these standards.
When purchasing, positive answers are needed to these questions:
1. Are the tags and readers compliant with ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1?
2. If tags are purchased from other manufacturers, can the buyer be sure that these new tags willinteroperate with existing tags and that the existing hardware and software can be used withoutany (or without major) reengineering?
3. Can new hardware, such as gates or self check-out stations, work with existing tags and existing
hardware?
4. Will the existing protocols and software work with the new hardware and tags? If not, what isrequired to make them compatible?
Caution should be taken in implementing optional proprietary features or functionality outside of the
ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 air interface as they may impose limitations to later desired interoperability.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

31

Section 5: The Book Supply Chain:
The Value of Standardization
5.1

Introduction

In an increasing number of libraries, RFID tags are applied to facilitate the cycle of library operations,
including the receipt, shelving, check-out, check-in, sorting and intra-system routing, re-shelving,
inventory and given goals for interoperability, potentially, interlibrary loans.
Libraries increasingly rely on distributors to ship material (books, CDs and DVDs) fully processed andready for the shelf, making it now possible for fully processed RFID items to reach patrons as quickly as
possible. The processing includes the application of all types of labels (barcode, spine label, ownershiplabel, etc.) and can include record uploads to a library’s ILS (Integrated Library System) as well as theapplication of RFID tags and encoding to individual library specifications. Encoding may include thebarcode number and other data as specified on the tag in lieu of encoding at the library. But lack ofstandardization has led to libraries adopting different and often proprietary RFID solution providers. In theabsence of a predominant industry standard, distributors and jobbers have had to initiate different
procedures for different customers, requiring the purchase, storage, and maintenance of different
conversion stations, maintenance of multiple software licenses, and stocking of different tags which makeit difficult for distributors to cost effectively apply and encode RFID at lower prices for their customers

5.2

Distributors and RFID Tag Applications

Costs to libraries may be limited if a standard tag and encoding methodology is embraced and adopted
by libraries. In the absence of a standard in the past, costs for accommodating the varied equipment anddata encoding for different libraries limited the cost-effective pricing of distributor tagging and encoding.
Issues include:•

Costs associated with the conversion stations—the distributors must purchase a conversion
station for each vendor; and costs will ultimately be borne by libraries requesting this preprocessing service•

Valuable space required by conversion stations in the warehouse•

Equipment management issues— distributor must manage the tags, and conversion stations foreach RFID solution provider

One improving trend is that most RFID solution providers have standardized on the same
ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 standard tag. But the distributor is still required to manage conversion stations
for each vendor.
Standardization of the data model should eliminate the need for a conversion station for each RFID
vendor. The movement by some vendors to the ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 standard has improved thecustomer/tag matching process, but the conversion station and data model issue remained.
Figure 1 illustrates how the use of a standardized data model simplifies the programming process.
Standardization will enable the Distributor to easily program the RFID chips independently of the RFID
solution provider.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

32

Figure 1: Distributor Applied RFID Tags

Figure 2 illustrates the issues facing distributors today. Until widespread adoption of the ISO 25860-2
standard by the industry, the distributor will, in many cases, be required to have a conversion stations foreach RFID solution provider vendor. Any mismanagement of the equipment can result in Vendor A’s
RFID tag being applied and programmed to books for a library needing Vendor B’s tag. The error is only
identified when the books are shipped to the library and the RFID tags cannot be read by the libraries
software. There is considerable urgency on the part of the wholesales for this to change.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

33

Figure 2: Standardized Data Model

The needs of the distributor in this discussion are very straightforward. Standardization of tags and data
mapping will enable distributors to supply libraries with programmed tags at a more cost effective price.
Without adoption of the ISO 28560 standard, distributors will have to maintain an inventory of equipment
for each RFID solution provider. The cost of maintaining this equipment and labor to attach and program
the tags specific to each vendor will be passed to the libraries. However, tags and data mapping that are
standards compliant for interoperability will open up the possibility that distributors can use the same
hardware and software for tags regardless of the RFID solution provider.
The problems faced by distributors are diminished as more RFID solution providers adopt standards,
allowing the distributor to utilize a standard tag and programming scenarios on higher percentages ofprocessed materials. The use of standards reduces the cost of providing RFID application services tolibraries thus reducing the price to the libraries.
In summary, until a standard data model is adopted and an interoperable RFID market emerges, it willremain difficult for distributors to cost effectively satisfy the demand for applying and programming RFID
tags for libraries.
The end goals of standardization include:•

reduction of equipment proliferation,•less costly work processes, and•simplification of work processes.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

34

Section 6: Privacy
6.1

Privacy Issues

Library services in the United States are fundamentally characterized by an uncompromising institutional
commitment to safeguard individual library patron privacy. Libraries stridently protect materials in theircollections from censorship by individuals, groups, and representatives of municipalities and government
subject only to state, federal and library policy conditions. In turn, library patrons rely on institutional
adherence to principles that assure their privacy is protected when reading materials in the library, using
computers connected to the Internet, and most relevant to RFID, when borrowing circulating materials.
The automated library circulation systems that replaced written tracking of patron checked-out materials
were the first major computer programs developed to enable libraries to keep up with rapidly growing
library circulation. These legacy systems began to be widely adopted in libraries during the 1980s. In
time, progressive development of automated applications extended to additional library procedures
including acquisitions, serials, patron requests, interlibrary loan, and other functions as the legacy
systems evolved to today’s Integrated Library System (ILS). With the increasing strides in automating
repetitive and routine clerical activities in libraries, however, the requirement to protect the privacy oflibrary patron transactions from review by anyone other than authorized library personnel has remained afundamental design criterion. Deployment of RFID requires the same vigilance to assure patron privacy isprotected.
In spite of the fact that RFID has shown great promise in further streamlining the circulation and handlingof library materials during times of increasing library use and declining library funding, it is not surprisingthat RFID has been subject to close scrutiny and concern about how this technology can be deployed
without undermining a library patron’s privacy. RFID’s potential for shifting the checking-out and checkingin of materials to patrons rather than staff and automating the sorting of returned library materials in
libraries with multiple branches and large collections, potentially touch upon patron privacy when a patron
is linked by an RFID system with the circulation of an item.
The library community’s response to the continuing viability of increasing use of RFID in libraries
ultimately resulted in activities within the affected professional associations and groups aligned with thebroader library industry. In 2003, a variety of technical, economic, and social issues were of concern tothe members of the RFID working group sponsored by the American Library Association/Book Industry
Study Group (ALA/BISG)—including representatives from libraries, publishers, retailers, distributors,
distributors, and technology vendors.

6.2

ALA Resolution on RFID Technology and Privacy

Completed in late 2004, and subsequently adopted by BISG and ALA, the ALA Resolution on Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology and Privacy Principles has five main tenets. It states:
All businesses, organizations, libraries, educational institutions, and non-profits that buy, sell, loan, orotherwise make available books and other content to the public utilizing RFID technologies shall:•

Implement and enforce an up-to-date organizational privacy policy that gives notice and full
disclosure as to the use, terms of use, and any change in the terms of use for data collected via
new technologies and processes, including RFID.

•

Ensure that no personal information is recorded on RFID tags which, however, may
contain a variety of transactional data. [Emphasis added.]•Protect data by reasonable security safeguards against interpretation by any unauthorized third
party.

•

Comply with relevant federal, state, and local laws as well as industry best practices and policies.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

35

•

Ensure that the four principles outlined above must be verifiable by an independent audit.

The policy also resolved that the ALA develop implementation guidelines for the use of RFID technologies
in libraries.
Following the resolution, ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee was asked to examine the technology on
a more detailed level with the intention of adopting a new set of “Confidentiality Guidelines.” It wasenvisioned that the new guidelines could be used by libraries to guide their adoption of RFID technology
in a manner that assured that relevant privacy issues the Committee felt appropriate would be addressedby libraries. The committee conducted meetings and considered comments from association members
and others.

6.3

ALA Guidelines on Privacy and Confidentiality in RFID

RFID in Libraries: Privacy and Confidentiality Guidelines, adopted by the ALA Intellectual Freedom
Committee on June 27, 2006, responded in part to concerns that “RFID tags may be read byunauthorized individuals using tag readers, there are concerns that the improper implementation of RFID
technology will compromise users' privacy in the library” and that researchers “have identified serious
general concerns about the privacy implications of RFID use, and particular privacy concerns about RFID
use in libraries.” The most relevant sections in the Guidelines for this discussion are the “Policy
Guidelines” and “Best Practices” sections.
The “Policy Guidelines” section emphasizes a library’s obligation to inform and educate library staff andmembers of its community about all aspects of the intended deployment of RFID. Libraries areencouraged to have a “transparent (RFID) selection process” and to “publicize its reasons for its planned
implementation while considering comments from the library’s users to broaden the public debate,” if any,over the proposed implementation. Libraries are charged to “review and update appropriate privacy
policies and practices addressing notice, access, use, disclosure, retention, enforcement, security, anddisposal of records” that are reflected in the configuration of the RFID system. In summary, the libraryshould engage in a thorough public and staff education, including review and discussion of all aspects ofa planned implementation.
This section also encourages libraries to consider procuring systems that would allow library patrons tochoose whether to use RFID technology or “opt out,” and use another system for circulation. This choice
would require a library to operate two parallel systems for circulation, however. A library is also
encouraged to “delete personally identifiable information collected by RFID systems, just as libraries takereasonable steps to remove personal information from aggregated, summary data.”
The “Best Practices” section of the Guidelines reinforces the privacy tenets of the ALA Council policy andprovides increased technical specificity. Libraries are encouraged to extend the same commitment andpractices affecting security of bibliographic and patron databases used in an ILS to a planned RFID
deployment, and to “use the most secure connection possible for all communications with the ILS toprevent unauthorized monitoring and access to personally identifiable information. Any data stored on an
RFID tag should be “protected by the most secure means available, including encryption.”
Further, libraries should “block the public from searching the catalog by whatever unique identifier is usedon RFID tags to avoid linking a specific item to information about its content,” and staff should be trained“not to release information about an item's unique identifier in response to blind or casual inquiries.”
Consistent with the ALA Council’s Technology Principles, libraries are advised not to store any personallyidentifiable information on any RFID tag. The only area of disagreement with this document’s proposed
practices pertains to the determination by the Intellectual Freedom Committee that libraries should “limit
the bibliographic information stored on a tag to a unique identifier for the item (e.g., barcode number,record number, etc.)” A method for storing limited bibliographic information on an RFID tag is suggested
as an optional use in this document.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

36

6.4

Implementing the NISO RFID Recommendations and ALA RFID Policy

The most critical aspect of both the ALA Council’s RFID Technology Principles and the Intellectual
Freedom Committee’s Privacy and Confidentiality Guidelines is that a library should engage in athoroughly open and transparent examination of all aspects of how RFID may be deployed so thatpatrons and staff can examine all aspects of the proposed deployment, with an emphasis onunderstanding how the technology assures patron privacy. Such an examination should provide the bestforum for examining all areas where trade-offs between a decision to utilize RFID tag fields to store
bibliographic or other data, provided as an optional use as outlined in this document, is weighed against
determining only to store a unique item identification number as suggested in the Intellectual Freedom
Committee’s Privacy and Confidentiality Guidelines.
It is important to note that this Recommended Practice document (RFID in U.S. Libraries) concurs that no
patron information should be stored on an RFID tag and that no transactional data regarding patron use
be stored in any case. Individual libraries are in the best position to determine what is best for theirpatrons and communities. RFID in U.S. Libraries does provide recommendations to enable thistechnology to be used efficiently and effectively without compromising library privacy and confidentiality.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

37

Section 7: Vandalism
7.1

Introduction

As with any library materials or equipment, RFID systems have some vulnerability to the few individuals insociety intent on vandalizing public property. Technology can provide some impediments to the vandal,
such as that offered by password protection schemes on data that must remain changeable during the lifeof the item, simple locking of static data, and perhaps other methods in the future. Ultimately, most ofthese schemes create difficulties in implementation and hinder interoperability, and place the library only
a few steps ahead of increasingly sophisticated vandals.
Libraries must ultimately choose whether the protective qualities of impediments presented to vandals
outweigh the detrimental impacts of the protections, keeping in mind that traditional low-tech methods
remain available to vandals. Different libraries will find the balance point in different positions on thisissue, and there is really no right or wrong choice for libraries to adopt. For many libraries, the least
expensive solution may be to accept the basic risks associated with RFID as an incremental difference
from the exposure they encounter just by maintaining their collections with open doors and their catalogs
accessible online.
Note that RFID tags allow the modification of portions of tag memory if these portions are not locked orotherwise permanently programmed. A sufficiently sophisticated vandal has a number of attacks
available, which fall into two basic categories: modification of security data and modification of tag
contents. This section describes some of the potential attacks that a vandal might make on a library RFID
system.

7.2

Modification of Security Data

In this attack, a criminal uses an RFID reader to modify the security information on a tag in order to steal
an item or perpetrate a malicious act. Tagged materials can be stolen from the library by programming
security data to the “off state” with an RFID reader. An individual with malicious intent could also use the
RFID reader to permanently turn off security by locking the security data. This may be accomplished ontags and systems using AFI or an EAS method for security. More and more commonly, hand held devices
like PDAs and smartphones can interact directly with RFID tags. With the proliferation of these hand held
devices, the opportunity for mischief increases. As a result the risk of this type of vandalism occurring also
increases. Libraries are advised to consider these risks and develop a position most suitable for theirenvironment.
Virtual deactivation is not susceptible to this type of vandalism.

7.3

Modification of Tag Contents

In this attack, the criminal uses an RFID reader to reprogram the contents of the RFID tag for purpose ofvandalism or theft. This could include programming random data, erasing data, or locking data formalicious purposes. Data can also be changed to valid but incorrect data for the purposes of theft, i.e.,
exchanging item numbers. Any of these situations causes difficulty to the library. Programming andlocking the primary item identifier (see Section 2.5.2) will enable the library to protect against modificationof tag contents. Data objects that have been altered by a vandal may be reconstructed, as long as theprimary identifier is still intact.

7.4

RFID Viruses

There have been some discussions of theoretical attacks on RFID systems using what have been called“RFID viruses.” In these attacks, a particular data string is encoded on an RFID tag, and that tag ispresented to the victim system. If the system design allows, the data on the tag might be read by the

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

38

system and cause it to do something damaging or destructive, and/or, as the name suggests, somethingthat would cause the virus to spread.
The debate over RFID viruses was lively for a period of time, with some parties arguing that this was atremendous vulnerability of systems, and others arguing that the vulnerability exists only if specific design
features are implemented to make it credible. 4 The latter argument suggests that the theoretical threat
can be realized only if systems are intentionally designed to be susceptible to such attacks. For thepresent discussion, let’s assume that the threat is real but manageable and focus on the practicalaspects.
As described in papers on the subject, typical spreading of the virus is accomplished by writing thevirulent data into other tags encountered by the system. This might be accomplished by modifying a data
object in a system to include a command embedded in the tag to define the information to be written totags programmed by the system. Other destructive actions that could be caused by a virus include
undesired operations on the system triggered by commands embedded in the data on the infected tag—for instance, the tag could contain a command directing a database to delete a table of data.
Compliance with standard encoding schemes can, to some extent, prevent such an attack. At this writing,the Working Group is unaware of any such attacks against existing library RFID systems. Furthermore,some time has passed since the emergence of these theoretical threats, and the Working Group is also
not aware of any practically successful attacks made on RFID systems. Prudent system designers haveguarded against creating designs that are susceptible to attacks such as these in the past, and withdisclosure of this threat, it is expected that systems will continue to be hardened against such attacks.

7.5

Intentional Detuning of the Tag

The low-tech method of defeating the security functionality of an RFID tag is simply to shield or detune
the tag, by means of tin foil or a commercially produced tool marketed to provide privacy for consumers.
Such techniques have also been publicized as a means for travelers to protect their privacy amidst
threats against electronic passports.

7.6

Physical Defacing or Removal of the Tag

The most widely available and low-technology method of vandalizing an RFID implementation on a library
item is simply to remove or mutilate the RFID tag itself. To date, this has been recognized as a fairly
minor issue in library implementations, but it does exist, just as such attacks have existed for barcodesand other item labels. If the industry begins to incorporate RFID tags into the construction of library items,
the tags might become less susceptible to this kind of attack because they may be less visible and thus
more difficult to damage without obviously damaging the item. Short of changes such as this, the tags
remain visible and accessible to the vandal. Some libraries have found their tags vulnerable to the fingers
of small children who like stickers.

7.7

Moving Forward

It is not the intention of the Working Group to scare potential users away from embracing this technology
by exposing it obvious limitations. But, rather, the Working Group feels strongly that the benefits of thetechnology far outweigh the limitations that it brings with it. Over time, the technology will improve anderase some of these limitations. Similarly, over time, vandals will discover newer techniques to defeat the
security of these systems. The Working Group is of the unanimous opinion that libraries should move
forward with the implementation of this technology when funding permits and do so with the fullunderstanding of the benefits and limitations that come with it.
For additional readings on vandalism, see the Bibliography.

4

See “The Industry Reacts to RFID Virus Research,” RFID Update: The RFID Industry Daily, March 20, 2006,
http://www.rfidupdate.com/articles/index.php?id=1077.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

39

Appendix A:
RFID Technology Basics
A.1 What Is RFID?
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is an automatic identification and data capture technology. RFID
systems use radio waves as the communication medium between RFID tagged objects and RFID reader
stations. Tags—or “electronic labels,” as they are also known—operate as portable databases that can beaccessed wirelessly. The memory on these tags can be read and written to remotely and at very highspeed.
RFID, though relatively new to libraries, has been in existence for more than sixty years, and it has been
extensively used in applications such as toll collection, access control, ticketing, and car immobilization
devices (also called immobilizers). In recent years, the technology has received increased attention due
to a confluence of actions, including technology advancement, heightened security concerns, supply
chain automation, and a continuing emphasis on cost control within industrial systems. The technology
offers a revolution in the efficiently of item management and traceability.
The primary benefit of RFID tags over barcodes is their ease of use and reliability. RFID tags can be read
while in motion, in any orientation, through intervening objects and without the need for line of sight. RFID
tags enable reliable automation, while barcodes are better suited for manual scanning. Perhaps mostsignificant is the fact that several RFID tags can be read simultaneously and automatically, whilebarcodes have to be scanned one by one. Though it is a costlier technology compared with barcodes,
RFID has become indispensable for a wide range of automated data collection and identification
applications that would not be possible otherwise.

A.2 How Does RFID Work?
A typical RFID system is composed of three key components—a reader, tag(s), and a host computer.
The RFID reader sends out electromagnetic waves in the RF (Radio Frequency) spectrum. When the tag
enters the RF field, the tag’s electronic circuits are powered by energy from the RF field. The tag thenmodulates the waves and the sends them back to the reader. The reader converts the signals received
from the tag into digital data and sends it to the host computer.
More specifically, the key RFID system components are described below:
An RFID tag consists of an integrated circuit (IC) attached to a tag antenna. The IC is the heart of
the tag. The electronic circuits on the IC define the functionality and memory capability of the tag.
The tag antenna is a conductive structure specifically designed to couple or radiate
electromagnetic energy. The shape and size of the antenna dictate the RF tag operating
frequency and the read range of the desired system. The antenna is typically fashioned via
electrochemical etching or deposition techniques or in some instances can be manufactured
using conductive ink printing.
The base material of the tag is often polyester, PET, and other plastic films, but can also be paper
substrates.
RFID tags come in a multitude of form factors and packages. They are available in a variety ofsizes, shapes, and degrees of rigidity, robustness, and flexibility to fit with the item it is intended
to identify, along with the reader performances expected at each transaction stage. These include
thermal transfer labels, plastic cards, key fobs, or encapsulated buttons. Tags can also be
incorporated or even embedded into materials such as cardboard, plastic, wood, textiles, or theliving tissues of animals or humans.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

40

An RFID Reader Station is made up of an RFID reader and an antenna. It can read information
stored in the RFID tag and also update this RFID tag with new information. It generally holds
application software specifically designed for the required task. RFID stations may be mounted inarrays around transfer points in industrial processes to automatically track assets as they are
moving through the process.
An RFID reader station can be fixed or handheld, and is usually connected to management
information system or host computer.
Reader antennas are available in a variety of shapes and sizes; they can be built into a door
frame to receive tag data from persons or things passing through the door, or they can bemounted into EAS gates; embedded into desk tops and other furniture; or integrated into
conveyer or other materials-handling systems.
The electromagnetic field produced by an antenna can be constantly present when multiple tags
are expected continually. If constant interrogation is not required, the field can be activated by asensor device.
Readers may operate at different RF frequencies, and even within a single frequency they may
still use different communication protocols. Air interface protocols are the rules that govern how
tags and readers communicate.
Two common families of protocol are Reader Talks First (RTF) and Tag Talks First (TTF)
protocols. For RTF systems the tags wait to be commanded to communicate data and signals by
the reader. For TTF systems, tags send information continuously while in the RF field andpowered up, without waiting for a specific command from the reader.

A.3 What Are the Frequencies Used?
RFID technology can be implemented using different radio frequencies to wirelessly communicate dataand commands to and from the RFID tag from the RFID reader. The different frequencies offer different
properties and features. The choice of frequency for a given application will depend on the requirementsof the application and the best match of these requirements to the frequency properties.
There are four key RFID frequencies bands used today:
Low Frequency (LF) 125 - 134 KHz. LF is mostly considered for specific applications, although
its deployment is global. It has minimal metal interference and is not sensitive to the presence ofwater. Expected read range is below 1.5 meters, with low data transmission rates. This carrier
frequency is dominantly used for animal identification, vehicle immobilizer systems, and nocontact “proximity” access control.
High Frequency (HF) 13.56 MHz. HF is widely deployed, thanks to a broad global frequency
deployment. It is minimally affected by moisture and uses higher data transmission rates than LF.
Read range is below 1.5 meters. Manufacture of HF tags can be achieved using very low-cost,reel-to-reel processing techniques, offering low-cost tags. The frequency is highly reliable andpredicable in the presence of metals and for random tag orientations. Main applications are forasset tracking applications, such as library automation; laundry process automation; courier- anditem-level supply chain; and retail tagging applications.
Ultra High Frequency (UHF) 860 - 960 MHz. UHF is less globally harmonized for frequency andpower regulations than LF and HF, although initiatives by EPCglobal have improved this situation.
Currently, different countries have different UHF frequencies available for RFID, and different
power levels available. The UHF frequency offers greater read range than other frequencies, but
is adversely affected by moisture and cannot read tags shielded by the human body. The
presence of metal also creates reflective surfaces that can dramatically degrade the performanceof these systems. UHF antennas are tuned to receive RFID waves of a certain length from areader, just as the tuner on the radio in a car changes the antenna to receive signals of different
frequencies. When UHF antennas are close to metal or metallic material, the antennas can be
detuned, resulting in poor performance. The main applications for UHF are pallet and case

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

41

tracking for supply chain logistics and vehicle tracking; however, some item-level applications arebeing implemented and industry groups are considering additional applications.
Microwave 2.45 GHz. Another frequency being used for RFID is the microwave 2.45 GHz
frequency. This frequency is more globally available than UHF, but is totally unsuitable in thepresence of liquids, which absorb this frequency. The frequency is not widely deployed andrequires complex implementation. Primary use is vehicle access control.
The physics of the interaction between reader and tag at LF and HF are very different to the interaction
between reader and tag at UHF and microwave. At the lower frequencies (LF and HF), the physicalmechanism for the data communication is transformer-type electromagnetic coupling and energy istransferred from the reader to the tag and vice versa by virtue of mutual inductance between theirrespective antennas. Whereas at the UHF and microwave frequencies the electromagnetic field operates
in a radiating or propagating wave, the energy for LF and HF is radiated by the reader and reflected by
the tag antenna.
This difference in physics fundamentally defines the different characteristics of the various RFID
operating frequencies.
Of the four frequencies mentioned above, the two that are likely to offer the best low-cost, highperformance features and are best suited to mass-volume applications are HF and UHF.
When considering a carrier frequency, it is important to consider worldwide regulations that determine
whether this frequency is usable all around the world or only in specific parts or regions. FCC, ETSI andJapanese emission limits are very similar for 13.56 MHz and 125 kHz. It allows the use of one unique
RFID system reliable all over the world.

A.4 Types of RFID Tags
Passive
There are many varieties of RFID, but the most common is passive RFID systems. Passive tags have nobattery or other power source on the tag; they must derive all the power required for their operation fromthe reader’s electromagnetic field. Passive tags consequently tend to be flat, in label form, are low in cost,and offer a virtually unlimited operational lifetime. The tradeoff is that they have shorter read ranges thanbattery-powered tags.
ActiveAn active RFID tag is one that has a transmitter to send back information, rather than reflecting back asignal from the reader as a passive tag does. Most active tags use a battery to transmit a signal to areader. Active tags can be read from 300 feet (100 meters) or more, but they tend to be expensive. Thesetags are primarily used for tracking expensive items over long ranges. For instance, the U.S. military uses
active tags to track containers of supplies arriving in ports. EZPass toll collection systems are also basedon active tags.
SensorSensor tags incorporate sensors as well as memory on the tag. RFID sensor tags for measuring air
pressure in car tires or temperatures for cold food and drug monitoring are becoming more widely used.

A.5 Memory Capacity and Functionality
There are two main types of tag memory structure: Read Only and Read/Write. Read Only is the term
applied to a tag in which data is written (or programmed) once during manufacturing, and afterwards canonly be read and but not changed or altered in any way. Read/Write is the term applied to RFID tags thatcan be written (or programmed) and can subsequently be rewritten and reread numerous times.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

42

There is a third field-programmable structure that is also of the read/write variety. After having been
programmed by the user, this Write Once/Read Many (WORM) structure accords the user the ability tolock the tag’s memory indefinitely.
Read Only tags are typically passive and are programmed with a unique set of data (usually 32 to 128bits) that cannot be modified. Read Only tags most often operate as a license plate in a database, in thesame way as linear barcodes reference a database containing modifiable, product-specific information.

A.6 Constraints Related to RFID Particularly Relevant to Libraries
When implementing RFID solutions it is necessary to recognize some of the physical constraints of thetechnology. There are two areas that should be considered and are particularly relevant to library
applications. Firstly, the presence of metals in the RFID reading environment and, secondly, theplacement of RFID tags relative to each other.
Communication between RFID readers and tags occurs via electromagnetic waves operating in the Radio
Frequency spectrum. The communication is governed by the laws of physics related to RF propagation. If
metal is placed between the tag and reader, communications can be broken, as metal is impervious to RF
waves. Particular care should be taken in a library environment when tagging books with metal foil
covers. Also, care should be taken to avoid tags being placed flush with the end of metal bookshelves.
Placement of currently deployed high frequency (HF) tags is a critical factor affecting system performance(see Figure 3 below). When tag placement in one item directly overlays another placement and both
items are in very close proximity, readability is compromised. The antenna component of each tag
interacts and changes the tag’s resonant radio frequency, making it difficult for the RFID readers tocommunicate with the tag. This is analogous to tuning your FM receiver just a little bit away from thechannel you are trying to receive, diminishing the quality of the reception. A way to avoid this is theprocess of staggering tags in like items that are shelved in close proximity.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

43

Figure 3: Placement of HF RFID Tags
While RFID tags operate with high reliability and readability on most items, principally books, there arestill challenges in regards to some forms of media. Size constraints and presence of metal are core issues
to overcome. These constraints apply equally to all applications of RFID.

A.7 ISO Standards
Standardization is a complex area. There are a myriad of standards groups (international, national, andindustrial) generally denoted by acronyms. For example, just a few are IATA, CEN, ETSI, ANSI, AIAG,and ISO, and the list goes on. This alphabet soup is further complicated by an apparently random
numbering of standards. To understand the RFID standardization environment, some structure andsimplification is required. Amongst the numerous standards groups there are two key bodies driving the
RFID standardization process. These are EPCglobal and ISO.
EPCglobal Inc. is an industry standards group comprising end-user companies and technology
suppliers. As a joint venture between GS1and the Uniform Code Council® (UCC®), EPCglobal’s
objective is to drive the global adoption and implementation of the Electronic Product Code (EPC)
network across industry sectors. The EPC network will enable total asset visibility within industry
and retail logistics supply chains. RFID is seen as a key facilitating technology for the EPC

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

44

network and, as such, is one focus of the standardization activities of the organization. EPCglobal
has published an RFID UHF standard known as Gen2, and is currently in the process ofdeveloping a HF specification.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is, as its name suggests, is aninternational standards body. It is the world’s largest developer of standards, and is a nongovernmental organization that works with representatives from 147 countries to define standards
for technology. ISO has been developing standards for RFID for over eight years.
The International Standards Organization has published the ISO/IEC 18000-3 standard jointlywith the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). This is the most comprehensive RFID
standard available today.
This standard is a technology standard that defines:•

the physical interface between the RFID tag and the RFID reader (i.e., RFID operating
technology, data-encoding techniques, and the communication data rate);•

a limited number of standard commands (e.g., wake up, read); and•the algorithm to enable communication with several RFID tags located in a single readzone (multi-read mechanism: read/write all at once).

However, this standard does not define the criteria that are specific to a particular application andhave a fundamental impact on the overall RFID system’s performance:•

size and shape of the tag antenna;•

security function;•

memory size (too much data stored in tags would slow down applications);•

memory structure (i.e., data formats, read-only, read/write, write once/read many,lockable parts); or•

specific commands, such as faster writing or reading. RFID chip vendors will be free to
implement additional custom commands to enhance the performance of their RFID
systems.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

45

Appendix B
Interoperability Characteristics
Table 2 considers the interoperability of a tag in an interlibrary loan situation, based on security
characteristics of the systems in use.
Table 2: Interoperability in ILL Based on Security Characteristics

Borrowing Library Equipment Uses:ILL Example

Owning Library Tag and Equipment Uses:

Tag
Supports
AFI(no tag
support for
EAS)

EAS –
Vendor 1(tag also
supports AFI)

EAS –Vendor 2(tag also
supports AFI)

EAS – Vendor 2(also supports AFI for
application separation)(also supports AFI for
application separation)(also supports AFI
for application
separation)

EAS feature will notwork for this tag.
Item security will not
be available atborrowing library.

EAS feature will notwork for this tag. Item
security will not be
available at borrowing
library.

Interoperable
security after
database update
adds borrowed
item at borrowing
library

Seamlessinteroperable
security, unless
AFI is locked

Seamlessinteroperable
security

EAS feature will notwork for this tag. Item
security will not be
available at borrowing
library.

Interoperable
security after
database update
adds borrowed
item at borrowing
library

Seamlessinteroperable
security, unless
AFI is locked

EAS feature will notwork for this tag.
Item security will not
be available atborrowing library.

Seamless interoperable
security

Interoperable
security after
database update
adds borrowed
item at borrowing
library

Seamlessinteroperable
security, unless
AFI is locked

EAS feature may
work for this tag, if
the tag supports
Vendor 1 EAS.
Otherwise item
security will not be
available atborrowing library.

EAS feature may workfor this tag, if the tag
supports Vendor 2
EAS. Otherwise item
security will not be
available at borrowing
library.

Interoperable
security after
database update
adds borrowed
item at borrowing
library

Seamlessinteroperable
security

Database
Lookup(tag also
supports AFI)

Database Lookup

EAS – Vendor 1

AFI Used for
Security

LegendSeamless security interoperability
Interoperable security for some but not all libraries
Interoperable security with operator intervention
Security not interoperable for this caseSome explanation is required to explain the different sections of this table. Several assumptions must be
made by the reader. Some of these assumptions are listed here: In the table, EAS Vendor 1 and EAS

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

46

Vendor 2 are assumed to use incompatible and proprietary EAS designs. If two EAS vendors use acompatible EAS design, then libraries using systems from these two vendors should be interoperable forsecurity.
It is worth explaining the meanings of the different compatibility areas on the table as well.
1. Seamless Security Interoperability
These sections of the table are characterized by either totally compatible security mechanisms, where thelending library uses precisely the same RFID security technology as the borrowing library, or where theborrowing library uses a security method that is supported by the tag on the borrowed item.
Examples:•The lending library uses AFI for security, and the borrowing library uses AFI for security. A tag
that supports AFI will provide security at the borrowing location.

•

The lending library uses EAS from Vendor 1 or Vendor 2 for security, but the borrowing libraryuses AFI for security. A tag that supports AFI and on which the AFI code is not locked will provide
security at the borrowing location.

•

The lending library uses database lookup for security, and the borrowing library uses AFI for
security. A tag that supports AFI and on which the AFI code is not locked will provide security atthe borrowing location.

•

The lending library uses EAS from Vendor 1 for security and the borrowing library also uses EAS
from Vendor 1. A tag that supports this method of EAS will provide security at either location.

•

The lending library uses EAS from Vendor 2 for security and the borrowing library also uses EAS
from Vendor 2. A tag that supports this method of EAS will provide security at either location.

2. Interoperable Security with Operator Intervention
These sections of the table are characterized by compatible security technologies that require some kindof operator intervention to interoperate. For example:•

If the lending library and the borrowing library both utilize a database lookup system and if thedatabase information for an item in the lending library can then be sent to the borrowing library,
the borrowing library will be able to secure the item.

•

If the lending library uses AFI or any tag-based EAS method (i.e., relies on an EAS function built
into the tag design), it is still possible to use the database lookup method to provide security forthe item at the borrowing library. In that case, however, the borrowing library database must be
configured with that item, either manually or by loading records from the lending library.

3. Interoperable Security for Some but Not All Libraries
These sections of the table identify situations where the viability of providing item security in the
borrowing library depends on the particular tag technology used. For example:•

If the lending library uses database lookup for security and uses tags from EAS Vendor 1 and, if
the borrowing library uses EAS from Vendor 1 for security, the tag will then provide security in the
borrowing library. If, on the other hand, the lending library uses tags from EAS Vendor 2, then the
security system at the borrowing library will not function with the tags.

•

Likewise, if the lending library uses database lookup for security and uses tags from EAS Vendor
2, then if the borrowing library uses EAS from Vendor 2 for security the tag will provide security inthe borrowing library. If, on the other hand, the lending library uses tags from EAS Vendor 1, thenthe security system at the borrowing library will not function with the tags.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

47

4. Interoperable Security for Some but Not All Libraries
These sections of the table identify situations where the security system at the borrowing library will notsecure the tag used by the lending library. For example:•

If the lending library uses AFI for security and uses tags that do not include an EAS function, thenan EAS-based security system at the borrowing library will not provide security for an item taggedby the lending library.

•

Additionally, if the lending library uses tags that include an EAS feature from Vendor 1, but theborrowing library uses incompatible EAS-based security systems from Vendor 2, then the systemat the borrowing library will not provide security for an item tagged by the lending library.

•

Likewise, if the lending library uses tags that include an EAS feature from Vendor 2, but theborrowing library uses incompatible EAS-based security systems from Vendor 1, the system atthe borrowing library will not provide security for an item tagged by the lending library.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

48

Appendix C:
UHF RFID in Libraries
C.1 Introduction
In the past there have been concerns about UHF RFID for item level identification in libraries. The 2007
edition of RFID in U.S. Libraries by this NISO working group included this prediction:
Most of the above limitations on the use of UHF in library applications have been overcome as
the technology has evolved, with EPC Gen2, UHF near-field developments, and work on
frequency harmonization around the globe. Therefore it is likely that in the near future (five years
or less) the UHF tags may indeed be quite prevalent in libraries.1
As of the publication of this new edition of the NISO data model for U.S. libraries, there is no standard for
RFID in libraries at UHF frequencies. All existing UHF implementations, like most HF library ones, areproprietary implementations. This appendix is intended to document current activities in other parts of theworld and examine what is happening with UHF implementations in the book and library industries.
Alan Butters, principal consultant with Sybis, published a thoughtful report in 2008 examining the issuesof UHF technology for libraries.2 In this report he considers estimated cost savings through increased
production volume of UHF tags. He also addresses performance advantages of UHF for significantly
greater read range and immunity against tag masking (close proximity of tags). Butters also mentions thepossible advantages for libraries if there is further UHF deployment in the publishing supply chain (seemore in the following).

C.2 Book Retail and Publishing UHF RFID – Implications for Libraries
In 2006, with the release of a new EPC Gen2 standard that revived the possibility of item-level tagging
with UHF RFID, the publishing industry started to experiment with the technology. Boekhandels Groep
Nederland (BGN) the largest book retailer in The Netherlands, opened the world's first fully-automateditem-level UHF RFID tagged store at Almere in April 2006 and the second one at Maastricht in October ofthe same year. These Selexyz-branded smartstores were reporting accuracy approaching 100% and thesale volumes increased by 50%.3 These installations have rewarded the bookseller with the RFID
Visionary Award for 2006 at the RFID Breakthrough Awards in London. BGN won the Torex Retail ICT
Award and was recognized by InfoWorld Magazine as one of the 100 most significant IT projects of2006.4 In April 2007, BGN expanded its RFID project by installing RFID antennas on the shelves for the
special-order books in its two RFID-enabled stores, thus making item-level tracking enabled.4 In
December 2008, it was reported in the press release of BGN's RFID solution provider that BGN has
increased inventory visibility across its chain from 65% to 97.5% with an accuracy of 100%.5
In further supply chain efforts, the Japanese publisher Shogakukan reported using UPM Raflatac UHF
EPC Gen2 Crab inlays to help them improve tracking the high rate of book returns (47%) in Japan in
2009.6 and 7

C.3 UHF RFID in Libraries
As of the time of writing this report, only two U.S. libraries were identified as considering UHF RFID. The
Carver County Library in Waconia MN has been conducting some tests with 3M, but do not have current
plans for implementation. However, the Grand Rapids Public Library with Calvin College and Bibliomation
are actively pursuing development of an open-source UHF RFID solution planned for 2012-13.8

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT49

In just three years since the NISO Report, UHF RFID implementations have emerged in Australia,
Singapore, and Hong Kong and trial projects in China. Civica and Adilam Technologies reported in
October 2006 on their implementations in five libraries in Singapore and Australia utilizing their Spydus
software system with RFID supplied by Alien Technology Corporation.9 These installations are EPC
Global Gen2 standard tags that read across the 860-960MHz UHF spectrum at top speeds of 1000 tags
per second.
Also in 2006, the City University of Hong Kong implemented two parallel library pilots to test both HF and
UHF RFID.10 Their findings indicated their success with UHF RFID and future selection. The library
research team was able to control the read range and orientation of RCW’s UHF RFID readers andantennas through design of a proprietary read-range controlling device (patents pending in Hong Kong,
China, and Taiwan).
In August 2010, the City University of Hong Kong Library has been recognized as a founding leader in across-border collaboration between China and Hong Kong libraries to establish the UHF RFID Application
Working Group for a UHF data model for libraries and explore interoperability standards.11 Other founding
members include Tsinghua University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University libraries. This group has been
joined by libraries from Shantou University, the National Library of China, Chinese University of Hong
Kong, Baptist University of Hong Kong, and the GS1 Hong Kong.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

50

Appendix D:
Encoding Data on the RFID Tag
D.1 Introduction
This appendix serves as a paper-based tutorial to show the encoding to ISO/IEC 15962 rules in the user
memory of an ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 tag.
The appendix will not include detailed procedural steps because these can differ between vendors,
depending on how they implement the encoding rules of ISO/IEC 15961 and ISO/IEC 15962 (bothdiscussed below). The resultant encoding that is shown in this appendix is equivalent to compliant
encoding, but the detailed processes are not defined. In other words, the document shows what is
encoded from different input conditions but not how the encoding process is achieved.
ISO/IEC 15961, Information technology – Radio frequency identification (RFID) for item management –Data protocol: application interface, deals with the commands and responses between the applicationand encoder. This standard was first published in October 2004, and is currently undergoing revisions to
be republished as ISO/IEC 15961 Part 1. Although the presentation of commands and responses differs
between the two versions of the standards, they essentially provide exactly the same functional
requirements.
One major difference between the published version and the revised version of the standard is theremoval of some complex transfer encoding rules that were intended to be a formal interface between
ISO/IEC 15961 and ISO/IEC 15962. For a number of situations, this proved to be an overly complex
conformance requirement.
ISO/IEC 15962, Information technology – Radio frequency identification (RFID) for item management –Data protocol: data encoding rules and logical memory functions, deals with the process of converting
printable characters or those that appear on a screen into a compacted form for encoding on the RFID
tag. The encoding rules also provide a way of distinguishing between data elements using object
identifiers and, particularly, the Relative-OID as discussed in Section 2.6.
Like ISO/IEC 15961, this standard is also undergoing review and revision. The main feature that impacts
RFID for libraries is that the transfer encoding (discussed above) is no longer an input into the encoding
procedure. The fundamental encoding rule in ISO/IEC 15962 Rev 1 will remain as defined in the original
published version of the standard. New features are being added which might be considered at somefuture date for the library community, but are probably not relevant for the time being. These include
support for other types of RFID tag. With respect to this, the data protocol is intended to support many of
the ISO/IEC 18000 series of air interface protocols (i.e., different types of RFID tags) and therefore
provides a base for users to adopt additional or different tag types and yet still migrate the data in acompatible manner.

D.2 Assumptions
The detailed illustrative examples in this appendix will make the following assumptions:•That the memory on the RFID tag is compliant with a monolithic memory structure, where thememory is addressable in a sequence of blocks.

•

That the value of the AFI, whether the single value code “C2” is permanently used or the value“C2” is used for on-loan items and “07” is used for in stock items, is unrelated to the encoding
example.

•As the AFI is stored in a completely different memory location to the encoded data, that this isalso unrelated to the encoding examples.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

51

•

The DSFID consists of two components. According to ISO 28560-2, the access method shall bebased on a no-directory structure, where data elements are encoded contiguously one after theother. The second component of the DSFID is the data format, and this has the binary value{xxx00110} as assigned by the Registration Authority of ISO/IEC 15961 Part 2. Combining thevalue of the access method and data format results in a DSFID value of {00000110}, or “06” as ahexadecimal code.

•

The data format provides a method to encode a common Root-OID {1 0 15961 8} once per RFID
tag, with only the relative OID being encoded to distinguish between each encoded data
elements. Adding the relative OID as a suffix to the root OID creates a unique data element thatis distinguishable from all others in the application system.

•

As the DSFID is stored in a separate memory on the 18000-3 Mode 1 tag, it forms no part of theencoding examples, other than the fact that all the encoding assumes the correct encoding of the
DSFID.

•All of the relative OIDs used in the example are for illustration purposes only. The formal
list of relative OIDs will be specified in ISO 28560.

•

Any illustrations for locking of data assume that the tag being used has 4 bytes per block. Users
should be aware that ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 permits the block size to range from 1 byte to 32
bytes. There are RFID tags on the market that have a block size other than 4 bytes, and this will
have an impact on the locking of data, both in the encoding rules and across the air interface. In
addition, the block size has an impact of reading and writing data across the air interface.

D.3 Compacting the Data
The data is compacted automatically to the rules of ISO/IEC 15962 whenever the ISO/IEC 15961
commands call for the data to be compacted. As different characters can be included in the data, different
compaction schemes are called up based on the actual data presented to the data compactor. Dataelements may be of variable length, which can result in a significant difference in the number of bytes
required to encode the data. The compaction rules defined in ISO/IEC 15962 always call for the mostefficient compaction scheme to produce the shortest length of encoded bytes.
The full list of compaction schemes and their codes that are relevant to compacted data is shown in Table
3.
Table 3: ISO/IEC 15962 Compaction Schemes
Code

Name

Description

000

Application-defined

As presented by the application

001

Integer

Integer

010

Numeric

Numeric string (from “0” to “9”)011

5 bit code

Uppercase alphabetic100

6 bit code

Uppercase, numeric, etc

101

7 bit code

U.S. ASCII

110

Octet string

Unaltered 8-bit (default = ISO/IEC 8859-1)

111

UTF-8 string

External compaction of ISO/IEC 10646

The compaction scheme is identified by a 3-bit code, as shown in Table 4. The function of the compaction
code will be described later.
The application commands of ISO/IEC 15961 include arguments for compaction. If the argument is set tocompact the data, then it requires the encoding processes, defined in ISO/IEC 15962, to choose the mostefficient compaction scheme ranging from integer to octet string. Sometimes, the length of the user data

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT52

is relatively short, and compaction cannot be invoked; the data is encoded as “octet-string” with the 3-bit
code {110}, enabling direct interpretation when it is read.
If the application command indicates that data is “application-defined” then this instructs the compactor to
bypass the compaction scheme and to use the 3-bit code {000} for the encoding on the RFID tag. This
ensures that when the tag is read at a subsequent time (sometimes even a different location) that the
decoding process carries with it the instruction that the data associated with a particular object identifier isapplication-defined. A potential use for this is if any data on the tag is to be encrypted. The encryption
process could be invoked outside of the scope of the ISO/IEC 15962 encoder (thus preserving somedegree of security), and the object identifier clearly defines that the data needs to be decrypted, but onlyby those who know the rules to apply. Another use is for the OID Index (see Section D.3.9 in thisAppendix).
The UTF-8 string is intended primarily for those countries that do not use the ISO Latin Number 1
character set as the basis for their language writing. ISO/IEC 10646 specifies precise rules for UTF-8
encoding, and such encoders are generally available. The intention is for the UTF-8 encoding anddecoding to be done externally to the ISO/IEC 15962 encoding rules. The 3-bit code {111} ensures thatany reading system is aware that a UTF-8 decode is essential before the data can be correctly displayedon a screen or printed.
Specific examples of encoding particular data elements are described in the following subsections. The
reader should note that these examples illustrate the encoding only of the data elements themselves, andthat a later section will address encoding of data set, including the precursor, length, and relative OID
information.

D.3.1 Primary Item Identifier
The first example for encoding the Primary Item Identifier is based on an all-numeric code, as shown in
Table 4.
Table 4: Compacting a Numeric Primary Item Identifier

Data Object

Primary Item Identifier (UII)

Relative OID

1Data Format

ASCII

Specified Length

Variable

Example of User Data

12345678901234
Length: 14 digits

Compaction Scheme

001 Integer

Encoded Bytes

0B3A73CE2FF2
Length: 6 bytes

This illustrates the most efficient compaction, because the user data can be converted from a decimal(Base-10) to a binary (Base-2) number. The compaction scheme selected automatically by the encoder is
integer with the code {001}.
If, on the other hand, the primary identifier is an alphanumeric code, as shown in Table 5, the compaction
will not be as efficient, but will still reduce the number of bytes from the characters presented as user data
to the bytes encoded on the RFID tag.
Table 5: Compacting an Alphanumeric Primary Item Identifier

Data Object

Primary Item Identifier (UII)

Relative OID

1Data Format

ASCII

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

53

Specified Length

Variable

Example of User Data

ABCD123456
Length: 10 characters

Compaction Scheme

100 6-bit code

Encoded Bytes

0420C4C72CF4D768
Length: 8 bytes

In this example, the compaction scheme selected is the 6-bit code {100}, because the characters are a
mixture of numeric or uppercase alphabetic.

D.3.2 Owner Library/Institution
The encoding example is based on the International Standard Identifier for Libraries and Related
Organizations (ISIL). The following is a description from the ISIL website
http://www.bs.dk/isil/structure.htm:
The ISIL is a variable length identifier. The ISIL consists of a maximum of 16 characters, using digits(Arabic numerals 0 to 9), unmodified letters from the basic Latin alphabet and the special marks
solidus (/), hyphen-minus (-) and colon (:). Latin letters modified with one or more diacritics and lettersfrom alphabets other than Latin cannot be used in the ISIL. Each ISIL identifier shall be unique whennormalized to the repertoire of characters specified in ISO/IEC-10646-1 without regard to case.
When an ISIL is written, printed, or otherwise visually presented, it shall be preceded by the letters
ISIL separated from the identifier by a space. An ISIL is made up by two components: a prefix and alibrary identifier, in that order, separated by a hyphen-minus. The hyphen-minus is a mandatory
character in the ISIL string.
The encoding of the Owner Library/Institution data element is specified by special rules defined in
ISO 28560-2. These rules are used to obtain a very efficient encoding of the ISIL, and are dependent
upon the specifics of the data element definition as described in the ISO 15511 specification. The rules
are described in detail in that document, in Appendix C, and not reproduced here.
The example of an ISIL code in Table 6 is taken from the ISIL website.
Table 6: Compacting an ISIL Code

Data Object

Owner Library/Institution

Relative OID

3Data Format

Alphanumeric Per ISO 15511

Specified Length

Max 16 characters

Example of User Data

US-InU-Mu
Length: 9 characters

Compaction Scheme

000 Application defined

Encoded Bytes

ACC09EBAA06F6B
Length: 7 bytes

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

54

An additional example of an ISIL code in Table 7 is based upon the OCLC code for the Library ofCongress.
Table 7: Compacting an ISIL Code

Data Object

Owner Library/Institution

Relative OID

3Data Format

Alphanumeric Per ISO 15511

Specified Length

Max 16 characters

Example of User Data

OCLC-DLC
Length: 8 characters

Compaction Scheme

000 Application defined

Encoded Bytes

78D8301183
Length: 5 bytes

The sentence “Each ISIL identifier shall be unique when normalized to the repertoire of characters
specified in ISO/IEC 10646-1 without regard to case” has some interesting implications. It means that the
ISIL is not case-sensitive, and that examples (as above) that are presented in uppercase and lowercase
for eye-readable purposes could be compacted more efficiently. The disadvantage is that thepresentation style is lost on decoding. On balance, it is probably better to retain the presentation style ofuppercase and lowercase letters and lose the small amount of encoding efficiency.

D.3.3 Set Information
The set information is presented in two components: The number of parts followed by the ordinal partnumber. If the total number of parts is 9 or less, then the user data can be presented as a 2-digit code. If
the total number of parts is between 10 and 99, then the user data is presented as a 4-digit code, as
shown in the illustration in Table 8. If the total number of parts is between 100 and 255, then the user
data is presented as a 6-digit code.
Table 8: Compacting the Set Information

Data Object

Set Info (ordinal part number; number of parts)

Relative OID

4

Data Format

Numeric

Specified Length

2, 4, or 6 digits

Example of User Data

1204
Length: 4 digits

Compaction Scheme

001 integer

Encoded Bytes

04B4
Length: 2 bytes

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

55

D.3.4 Shelf Location
The first example (Table 9) uses a Library of Congress Catalog classification.
Table 9: Compacting the Shelf Location
Based on the Library of Congress Catalog Classification

Data Object

Shelf Location

Relative OID

6Data Format

ASCII

Specified Length

Variable

Example of User Data

QA268.L55
Length: 9 characters

Compaction Scheme

100 6-bit code

Encoded Bytes

441CB6E2E335D6
Length: 7 bytes

To encode all the characters including the period (or full stop) {.}, the 6-bit code compaction scheme isused.
If an in-house system is used containing alphabetic data, it is recommended that this be restricted touppercase alphabetic characters, as shown in the next example (Table 10).
Table 10: Compacting the Shelf Location
Based on a Local Scheme

Data Object

Shelf Location

Relative OID

6Data Format

ASCII

Specified Length

Variable

Example of User Data

FICTOLKIEN
Length: 10 characters

Compaction Scheme

011 5-bit code

Encoded Bytes

324747B1692B80
Length: 7 bytes

Because this scheme only uses uppercase alphabetic characters, the 5-bit compaction scheme isautomatically selected. If punctuation or numbers are included in the user data, the most likely result willbe that the encoder uses the 6-bit compaction, as in the case of the Library of Congress code above.

D.3.5 GS1 CodeThe GS1 code is more popularly understood in the United States as the UCC code, and commonly seen
in retail outlets in a bar code format. This includes the encoding of the ISBN, with the prefix '978', andmore recently ‘979’. Since January 2007, the ISBN has formally changed from being a 10-digit code(sometimes with an X check character) into a 13-digit code, as represented in the GS1-13 bar code.
The GS1 code is applied to various other media products, including CDs, DVDs, some periodical
publications, and some music. There is a scheme for linking the ISSN for serial publications to the GS1
code with the prefix ‘977’. There is also a scheme that links the ISMN for printed music to the GS1 codewith the prefix ‘979’, shared with the ISBN.
The code structure for CDs, DVDs and other products without formal registration code structures follow

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

56

conventional GS1 rules. This means that for many products that originate in the U.S., the code mightneed to be expanded with leading zeros to conform to the 13-digit structure. Codes on products frommost other countries use the full 13-digit structure. Encoding everything in a 13-digit structure is importantbecause the final digit is a check digit that may be used for validation processes in some systems.
The example illustrated in Table 11 is of a 13-digit ISBN.
Table 11: Compacting the GS1 Code

Data Object

GS1 Code (e.g. ISBN)

Relative OID

13

Data Format

Numeric

Specified Length

13 digits

Example of User Data

9790132837965
Length: 13 digits

Compaction Scheme

001 Integer

Encoded Bytes

08E77163DE4D
Length: 6 bytes

Because the ISBN-13 never begins with a leading zero, integer compaction is always applied, and showsa significant level of encoding efficiency. Even for those U.S.-based GS1 codes on CDs and DVDs,
compaction will result in encoding of 7 bytes.

D.3.6 Title
The example in Table 12 is typical for a technical reference book. Although the data format is defined as
UTF-8, the majority of titles in the United States, including some foreign language titles, will be based on
the ISO/IEC 8859-1 Latin 1 character set, which is the default character set for input into the ISO/IEC
15962 encoding procedures.
Table 12: Compacting the Title

Data Object

Title

Relative OID

17

Data Format

UTF-8

Specified Length

Variable

Example of User DataCJKV Information Processing
Length: 27 characters

Compaction Scheme

101 7-bit code

Encoded Bytes

872A5D64127766DFCB6E1E9A77EE414396FC7979F3D3BB3F
Length: 24 bytes

The compaction process takes into account the complete character string and, as this example shows,
does not achieve a significant reduction in the encoding space required on the RFID tag. The main
reason for this is the fact that the user data contains a mixture of uppercase and lowercase letters. In thisexample, if all the characters had been uppercase, the compaction would have reduced to 21 bytes. Evenat this size, encoding a title so that it is easily eye readable consumes a significant amount of memory on
the RFID tag.

D.3.7 Order Number
An example of the compaction of an order number is shown in Table 13. One point to bear in mind with

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

57

respect to the order number is that it can be encoded in the RFID tag as part of the transaction between
the book jobber and the library, and then erased. Depending on the extent of preparation for encoding
done by the book jobber, a library might be able to overwrite a data element such as the order number
with more meaningful data for loan transactions once the book had been received into the system.
Table 13: Compacting the Order Number

Data Object

Order Number

Relative OID

10

Data Format

ASCII

Specified Length

Variable

Example of User Data

AB12345-X
Length: 9 characters

Compaction Scheme

100 6-bit code

Encoded Bytes

042C72CF4D6D62
Length: 7 bytes

D.3.8 Supplier Identification
The example in the Table 14 shows the compaction of a supplier identification based on the name of thebusiness.
Table 14: Compaction of the Supplier Identification

Data Object

Supplier Identification Data

Relative OID

9Data Format

ASCII

Specified Length

Variable

Example of User Data

Book Jobber Inc
Length: 15 characters

Compaction Scheme

101 7-bit code

Encoded Bytes

85BF7EB412B7E2C59792093BB1FF
Length: 14 bytes

This results in a reasonably long user data string, and reasonably poor encoding efficiency. In contrast, if
the supplier identification is presented in terms of some code structure, then the user data will be shorterand the possibilities of greater encoding efficiency will exist.
As with the order number, the encoding of the supplier identification might only be meaningful until theitem is first registered in the library loan system.

D.3.9 Tag Content Key (Also called OID Index)
The encoding of the OID Index has been left as the last example because the encoding cannot be
determined until the other data elements to be encoded have been selected.
Because the encoding is based on a bit string, and this has to be preserved, if ISO/IEC 15961 commands
are used, then this data element has to be specified as “user-defined.” If the encoding procedure does notformally use the 15961 commands, but uses some other means of transfer or input, then the functional
requirement is that this data element is user-defined and is not to be compacted. More sophisticatedencoding systems could have an in-built algorithm that takes the relative OID values for all the selected
data elements, and constructs the OID index accordingly. The reader should note that the OID index

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

58

identifies the relative OID of the encoded data elements in the sequence of the relative OID numbers andnot in the sequence in which they appear in the tag memory.
In whatever way the OID index is constructed, care needs to be taken that there is actual encoding
capacity for all of the data for the selected data elements. Otherwise, the OID index will indicate that a
particular data element is encoded, whereas the actual encoding might fail to achieve what was intended.
It follows that the encoding procedure for this particular data element needs to be based on somerigorous procedure to ensure that the OID index is correctly structured to provide its prime function of avery rapid indication of what data is encoded on the RFID tag.
In the example in Table 15, the following three data elements are encoded on the RFID tag:•

Relative-OID 3

ISIL

•

Relative-OID 6

Shelf location•

Relative-OID 15 Local Data – A

These three Relative-OIDs {3, 6, 15} require the OID index to have the following bits set to equal 1 {1st,4th, 13th). This is because the OID index only needs to identify those relative OIDs that are encoded thatare other than the mandatory primary identifier and this conditional OID Index. The basic bit sting of 11bits needs to be padded with trailing zero bits to align on an 8-bit boundary to create a 16-bit string. This
results in a variable length string that may be extended as additional data elements are included, either inthe specific library system or added to the data dictionary of ISO 28560.
The bit positions are references to the relative OID, not the sequence of encoding on the RFID tag. For
example, shelf location could be encoded before the ISIL and local data, depending on the data capture
requirements that are most relevant for the particular library.
Table 15: Encoding of the Tag Content Key (Also called OID Index)

Data Object

Tag Content Key/OID Index

Relative OID
Data Format
Specified Length2
Bit string
Variable length
1001000000001000
Length: 2 bytes
000 User-Defined
9004
Length: 2 bytes

Example of User Data
Compaction Scheme
Encoded Bytes

D.4 Data Sets and the Precursor
The ISO/IEC 15962 rules require that the relative OID and compacted data are incorporated into a
syntactical structure called a Data Set. There are various rules for data sets, but only two are relevant for
the library application: a data set for relative OIDs in the range of 1 to 14, and another for relative OIDs in
the range 15 to 127.

D.4.1 The Data Set for Relative OIDs 1 to 14
The structure of an encoded data set for a data element with the relative OID in the range 1 to 14 consistsof the following components:• A Precursor – a single byte that in this case encodes the compaction scheme and therelative OID (the last part of the object identifier)•

The length of the compacted data object

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT59

•

The compacted data object

This structure is shown in Figufe 4. The relative OID values 1 to 14 are directly encoded in the Precursor,
and this reduces the amount of memory required for the encoding.

Precursor

Length of data

Compacted data

Figure 4: Data Set Structure for Relative-OID Values 1 to 14

D.4.2 The Precursor
For the library applications, the Precursor is a single byte with the bit structure as defined in Figure 5.

Precursor Bit Positions
7

6

Offset5

43Compaction Code

2

1

0

Object Identifier

Figure 5: Bit Position of Precursor Components•

The Offset is associated with the need to align blocks when a data set has to be locked (see thisAppendix Section D.5). The offset has the value “0” when no block alignment is applied to thedata set, and has the value “1” when block alignment is applied.

•

The Compaction Code is the 3-bit code as determined by the compaction process.

•

The Object Identifier is the relative OID, and is the final component of the full object identifier.
The value of the relative OID for the primary item identifier number is “1” which encodes as
00012. The value of the relative OID for the OID index is “2”, which encodes as 00102. If theobject identifier is not a relative OID in the range 1 to 14, then the 4-bit code in the precursor has
the value 11112.

The bit structure of the precursor determines how subsequent bytes in the data set are decoded. The bitsthat identify the Object Identifier determine whether this is a relative OID in the range 1 to 14, or somehigher value. The bits that identify the compaction code ensure that the data is de-compacted using an
inverse set of rules to the compaction rules. The offset performs a function (discussed later with respect
to locking) that ensures that the sequence of data sets is contiguous.

D.4.3 The Data Set for Relative OIDs 15 to 127
The precursor only provides 4 bits for encoding the object identifier. It is only capable of directly encoding
relative OIDs from “1”, which encodes as 00012, to “14”, which encodes as 11102. For relative OIDs with avalue between 15 and 127, of which some are used for the library optional data elements, the last four
bits of the Precursor are set = 11112. This signals that the relative OID has to be explicitly encoded as aseparate component (a single byte) in the data set, as shown in Figure 6.

Precursor

Rel-OID 15-127

Length of data

Compacted data

Figure 6: Data Set with Relative OID 15 to 127

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

60

The encoded byte value is determined by subtracting 15 from the decimal value of the relative OID, andconverting this to a hexadecimal value. For example, relative OID “17” is encoded as “02HEX”.

D.4.4 Encoding the Data Sets
Table 16 shows the structure of the data sets that can result from encoding data elements defined for the
library community.
Table 16: Permitted Data Set Structures for Library Data Elements

Description

Structure of Byte String for an Encoded Data Set

Single Relative OID
1 – 14

Precursor Length of data

Single Relative OID
15 – 127

Precursor

Relative-OID

Data ~~
Length of data

Data ~~~~ Indicates that this component can be multiple bytes. Other data set structures are possible
form the encoding rules of ISO/IEC 15962, but these are associated with different object
identifier structures, or can apply when data is locked.

Taking the worked examples in Sections D.3.1 to D.3.9 of this Appendix, it is possible to show theencoding of each individual data set. Because those sections provide alternative examples for the samedata element, what follows in Table 17 and Table 18 cannot be seen as encoding on the RFID tag, simply
the encoding of individual data sets.
Table 17: The Data Set Examples for Relative OID 1 to 14

Data Element

Examplefrom:Precursor

Length ofCompacted
Data

Primary Item ID

Table 411

06

0B3A73CE2FF2

Primary Item ID

Table 54108

0420C4C72CF4D768

ISIL Code

Table 603

07

ACC09EBAA06F6B

ISIL Code

Table 703

05

78D8301183

Set Info

Table 8

24

02

04B4

Shelf Location

Table 94607441CB6E2E335D6

Shelf Location

Table 103607324747B1692B80

GS1 Code

Table 11

1D

06

08E77163DE4D

Order No

Table 13

4A

07

042C72CF4D6D62

Supplier ID

Table 14

59

0E

85BF7EB412B7E2C59792093BB1FFOID Index

Table 15

02

02

9004

Compacted Data

Table 18: The Data Set Example for Relative OID 15 to 127

Data
Element
Title

Examplefrom:Precursor

Relative
OID

Length ofCompacted
Data

Compacted Data

Table 12

5F

02

18

872A5D64127766DFCB6E1
E9A77EE414396FC7979F3
D3BB3F

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

61

D.5 Locking Data Sets
If the application calls for data to be locked, the encoding rules of ISO/IEC 15962 ensure that this isachieved within the constraints of the ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 tag. The specification for that air interface
protocol allows locking by block, which can be from 1 byte to 32 bytes according to the tag specification,
but is commonly—but not always—4 bytes per block. It is essential that any locked data set does notcross over a block boundary and interfere with adjacent unlocked blocks either immediately before or
immediately afterwards. Therefore, block alignment is necessary for up to 3 data sets associated with any
given locked data set. These are any preceding data set that is unlocked, the data set to be locked, andthe unlocked data set that follows.
The problem and solution are illustrated in Figure 7. The illustration on the left-hand side shows three
data sets—X, Y and Z—with data set Y requiring to be locked. To lock it, blocks n, n+1, and n+2 would
require to be locked, thus corrupting the data sets X and Z because some of the bytes of these blocks
would also be locked and therefore it would not be possible to be modified or deleted at some subsequenttime. Alternatively, if only block n+1 was locked, then some vital bytes of data set Y would remain
unlocked, and therefore subject to change.
By realigning data set Y so that it is block-aligned beginning at block n+1, only this block and block n+2
need to be locked (as shown in the illustration on the right-hand side). There are now some “blank” bytes
that need to be addressed. This is done by modifying data sets X and Y, as discussed in Figure 7 below.

n
n+1
n+2
n+3

X
Y
Y
Z

X
Y
Z
Z

X
Y
Z
Z

Y
Y
Z

n
n+1
n+2
n+3
n+4

Without Block
Alignment
WRONG

X
Y
Y
Z
Z

X
Y
Y
Z
Z

X
Y

Y

Z

Z

With Block
Alignment
CORRECT

Figure 7: Block Alignment Examples

The data sets need to be encoded in a contiguous sequence, so leaving a gap between data set X anddata set Y would result in a failure to properly decode the symbol. The fact that data set X is not locked isimmaterial; this alignment is necessary to ensure that data set Y can be read contiguously. The ISO/IEC
15962 rules insert an offset byte immediately following the precursor to begin to achieve this blockalignment.
In the case of data set X, the value of the offset byte equals 00HEX, indicating that there are no trailingbytes at the end of the data set before the beginning of the next data set. The precursor offset bit is set to
1. On this basis, data set X now completely aligns to the end of a block (See example in D.6.3).
Data set Y requires 2 bytes for block alignment. This is achieved by the offset byte being set to 01HEX,
which indicates that an additional byte of a null value (typically 00HEX) follows to achieve block alignment.
Again, the offset bit in the precursor is set to =1.
For decoding, if the offset bit in the precursor is set to 1, the decoder knows that an offset byte
immediately follows, and that the value of this offset byte determines how many additional null bytes areat the end of the data set before the beginning of the next data set.
In both the examples, without block alignment and with block alignment, data set Z does not occupy all
the bytes of its last block. In this particular case, this creates no problems because the data set isunlocked and so the next null byte can be used for encoding an additional data set at a future date. Within

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

62

the encoding rules, a byte that immediately follows the last data set is defined as the terminator byte andis set to the value 00HEX, which is not a valid precursor at the beginning of a data set. This is illustrated in
the following examples.
The difficulty involved in editing data elements residing in tag memory is readily apparent to a systemdesigner. These difficulties are exacerbated when the tag memory becomes fragmented by locked data
elements, particularly when there are multiple noncontiguous blocks in tag memory which are locked.
Because of these complications, it is our recommendation that any locked data elements with OID greaterthan 2 be physically located immediately after the OID Index data element. This practice will result in acontiguous locked section containing one or more data elements, and data elements which will remain
unlocked can be placed beyond that section in physical tag memory, easing the burden on a system
which attempts to edit these elements.

D.6 Encoding Example
To show the complexities of encoding—all of which are addressed automatically by the encoding rules—
the following hypothetical encoding example is described and illustrated in Table 19. This shows that the
primary item identifier is encoded in the first position through to the supplier ID being encoded in the last
position. At this stage, no block alignment has been undertaken. It should be noted that the OID index
identifies the relative OID of the ISIL Code, the Shelf Location, and the Title in the sequence of therelative OID numbers and not in the sequence in which they appear on the tag.
Table 19: The Data Set Examples for Relative-OID 15 to 127

Precursor

Relative
OID

Length ofCompacted
Data

Data Element

LockedPrimary Item ID

Yes

11

06

0B3A73CE2FF2OID Index

No

02

02

9002

Shelf Location

No

46

07

441CB6E2E335D6

ISIL Code

Yes

03

07

ACC09EBAA06F6B

Title

No

5F

18

872A5D64127766DFCB6E
1E9A77EE414396FC7979
F3D3BB3F

02

Compacted Data

The following subsections show a step-by-step encoding of each data set that is achieved through asingle process in the encoding rules. The step-by-step approach is used here to show how the encoding
builds up and identifies decisions that the encoder has to process.

D.6.1 Encoding the Primary Item Identifier
The precursor, length of compacted data, and the compacted data require 8-bytes. There is also arequirement to lock the data set, but as it is already block aligned it can be encoded in the first two blocks
of memory, as shown in Figure 8.

11 06 0B 3A
73 CE 2F F2Figure 8: Encoding the Primary Item Identifier

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

63

D.6.2 Encoding the OID Index
The data set for the OID index consists of 4 bytes: the precursor, the length of compacted data, and two
bytes for the compacted data (Figure 9). This does not have to be locked, because it is encoded in thenext block, as illustrated in F5.

11 06 0B 3A
73 CE 2F F202 02 90 02
Figure 9: Encoding the OID Index

D.6.3 Encoding the Shelf Location
The data set for the shelf location has 9 bytes, and as this data set is unlocked, could be encoded using 9
bytes. However, looking ahead to the next data set—the ISIL code that requires locking—determines thatthe shelf location data set needs to be encoded so that it ends block-aligned. As shown in Table 20, theblock-aligned data set requires the precursor to have its first bit set to 1, to have an offset byte with thevalue 02HEX, and to have 2 null bytes encoded at the end of the data. The resultant encoding is shown in
Figure 10.
Table 20: Block Aligning the Shelf Location Data Set

Precursor
Pre-alignment

47

Block Aligned

C7

Offset02

LengthData

07441CB6E2E335D6

07

441CB6E2E335D6

Null
Bytes
0000

11 06 0B 3A
73 CE 2F F202 02 90 02
C7 02 07 44
1C B6 E2 E3
35 D6 00 00
Figure 10: Encoding the Block-aligned Shelf Location

D.6.4 Encoding the ISIL CodeThe data set for the ISIL code is 9 bytes long. As it requires locking, and the next data set is unlocked, itneeds to be block-aligned. This is achieved by inserting the offset byte with the value 02HEX and encoding
two null bytes—value 00HEX—following the data. The resultant encoding is shown in Figure 11.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT64

11 06 0B 3A
73 CE 2F F202 02 90 02
C7 02 07 44
1C B6 E2 E3
35 D6 00 00
83 02 07 AC
C0 9E BA A0
6F 6B 00 00
Figure 11: Encoding the Block-aligned and Locked ISIL Code

D.6.5 Encoding the Title
Note that this example is included because it represents encoding a data set with an OID between 15 and127. This Best Practice, by demonstrating how to encode the title, is not making a recommendation to
encode that data element. The data set containing the Title consists of 17 bytes. As this does not have to
be locked, and it is the last data set in the RFID tag memory, no block alignment is required. The
encoding is shown in Figure 12.

11 06 0B 3A
73 CE 2F F202 02 90 02
C7 02 07 44
1C B6 E2 E3
35 D6 00 00
83 02 07 AC
C0 9E BA A0
6F 6B 00 00
5F 02 18 87
2A 5D 64 12
77 66 DF CB
6E 1E 9A 77
EE 41 43 96
FC 79 79 F3
D3 BB 3F 00
Figure 12: Encoding the Title

D.6.6 Selective Reading
On the assumption that the primary item identifier and OID index are of a fixed length for a particularlibrary, the number of bytes required for their encoding can be calculated. Using the example in Figure 9,
12 bytes are all that are required. Using the ISO/IEC 15961 Read-First-Objects command, this number ofbytes can be entered into the command, account taken of the block size, and the response will deliver (asin the example above) 3 blocks that contain the 12 bytes. If the OID Index is not encoded, then the last
block will consist of a sequence of null bytes which the ISO/IEC 15962 decoder will ignore.
Where the system needs to read the shelf location, the same 15961 command can be used, but the
number of bytes extended to cover the longest encoding of a shelf location. On the assumption that shelflocation coding is as in Figure 10, the interrogator will return 6 blocks of data and the 15962 decoder will
read the primary item identifier, the OID index, and the shelf location data sets.
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT65

It is also possible to selectively read an individual data set, by identifying the relative OID necessary tomeet the requirements of the application. For example, if there is a requirement to read only the ISIL
code, then its relative OID can be specified in a particular command, and that is all that the application
would return. The actual implementation in the reader could be achieved in two different ways:
Option 1
The primary item identifier and OID index can be read in the first pass and this would establish thatthe relative OID for ISIL code is encoded on the tag. The second pass reads from the third blockforward with the most efficient air interface implementation being based on some read until logic. Thisrequires a stepwise reading of the precursor, any offset, and any length of compacted data, but
skipping over the decode of any data other than the ISIL code. This process continues until the
ISIL relative OID is found, and then the entire data set is either returned or decoded or decoded at thereader.
Option 2
If the library always encodes the ISIL code, then the first stage of reading the primary item identifier
and the OID index could be skipped and the reading process begin at the block beyond the OID
index. The remainder of the procedure would be as Option 1. This procedure can only be applied if aparticular data element is always included on the RFID tag for every loan item in the library. If not,then Option 1 is preferred.
NOTE: This particular procedure might require specific commands to be constructed.
The logic behind selective reading, and particularly the read until procedure might require variant
implementations. Some RFID tags support the reading and writing of single blocks, others support only
reading and writing a contiguous set of blocks, and others support both methods. These are fundamental
air interface issues that will affect performance, but are strictly beyond the scope of the ISO/IEC 15962
encoding and decoding procedures. However, the 15962 decoding rules have been built around the factthat not only do different RFID tags support different read commands, but the tags can be completelyintermixed in an application and the decoding process still functions normally. As such, the encoding
procedure provides a high degree of encoding flexibility, together with support for interoperability of
ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 RFID tags with different memory architectures and command features.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

66

Glossary
AFI

Application Family Identifier. A feature of some RFID tags which enables separation of
RFID tags by application, so that, for instance, a tag on a library item does not interferewith a system for handling baggage. Also used for security in some library RFID
implementations.

EAS

Electronic Article Surveillance. The use of electronic systems to secure physical items.
Several technologies are included, though the interesting technology used for EAS of
relevance to this discussion is implemented using RFID tags.

ILS

Integrated Library System. The system that a library uses to manage its collection,
typically comprising a database and software to support functions such as circulation,collection management, acquisitions, patron account management, item searching, etc.

NCIP

NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol. ANSI/NISO Z39.83-2008. A communication
protocol for interoperability among integrated library systems to support library
operations: Interlibrary Loan, Direct Consortial Borrowing, and Self Service. The NCIP
standard was approved by the National Information Standards Organization in 2002 andrevised in 2008. The intent of this standard is to succeed SIP.

OID

Object Identifiers. It is a string of numbers that identifies an object.

RFID

Radio Frequency Identification. A technology used for the identification and physicalsecurity of items. The technology uses electronic tags for data storage and readers forthe reading and programming of the tags.

SIP

3M™ Standard Interchange Protocol. A communication protocol that provides a
standard interface between a library's integrated library system (ILS) and library
automation devices (e.g., check-out devices, check-in devices, etc.). The protocol can beused by any application that has a need to retrieve information from an ILS or process
circulation transactions via the ILS. There are two versions of SIP, version 1.0 and 2.0.
SIP is based on a proprietary protocol, but has been opened for use by all parties
providing systems for library circulation.

UID

Unique Identifier. A number or a string of numbers that uniquely identifies an object.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

67

Bibliography
3M Standard Interchange Protocol, version 2.0 [SIP2]. 3M Library Systems, updated April 11, 2006.
<http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=SSSSSu7zK1fslxtUm8_9m82Uev7qe17zHvTS
evTSeSSSSSS--&fn=SIP2%20Protocol%20Definition.pdf>
American Library Association. RFID in Libraries: Privacy and Confidentiality Guidelines. Adopted by theIntellectual Freedom Committee, June 27, 2006.
<http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=otherpolicies&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDispla
y.cfm&ContentID=130851>
American Library Association. Resolution on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology andPrivacy Principles. Adopted by the ALA Council, January 19, 2005.
<http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/ifresolutions/rfidresolution.cfm>
ANSI/NISO Z39.43-1993 (R2011), Standard Address Number (SAN) for the Publishing Industry.
Baltimore, MD: National Information Standards Organization, 1993. <http://www.niso.org/standards/z3943-1993r2006/>
ANSI/NISO Z39.83-1-2008, (NISO) Circulation Interchange, Part 1: Protocol (NCIP). Baltimore, MD:
National Information Standards Organization, 2008. <http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-83-1-2008/>
ANSI/NISO Z39.83-2-2008, Circulation Interchange, Part 2: Protocol Implementation Profile 1. Baltimore,
MD: National Information Standards Organization, 2008. <http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-83-2-2008/>
Butters, Alan. New RFID Technologies & Standards – What Does It All Mean for Your Library? Presented
at: VALA 2008 14th Biennial Conference and Exhibition: Libraries / changing spaces, virtual places,
Melbourne, Australia, February 5-7, 2008.
<http://www.valaconf.org.au/vala2008/papers2008/66_Butters_Final.pdf>
Ching, Steve H., and Alice Tai. HF RFID versus UHF RFID-Technology for Library Service
Transformation at the City University of Hong Kong. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), July
2009, pp. 347-359. [It is also notable that the Library was awarded the Certificate of Merit for the 2008
RFID Awards from GS1 Hong Kong.]<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W50-4WJ2CGV1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_s
ort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1745871250&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_ve
rsion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8ca8d1a28778ec721ca37848faaefa23&searchtype=a>
CityU and mainland university libraries explore UHF RFID data model standardisation. City University ofHong Kong press release, August 20, 2010.
<http://wikisites.cityu.edu.hk/sites/newscentre/en/Pages/201008201721.aspx>
DS/INF 163-1:2005, RFID Data Model for Libraries. Charlottenlund, Denmark: Dansk Standards, 2005.
<http://www.en.ds.dk/3196>
Dutch bookstore chain builds world's first fully automated item-level RFID tagged store, with Progress
Software technology. Supply Chain Management, May 5, 2006.
<http://www.logisticsit.com/absolutenm/templates/article-supplychain.aspx?articleid=2079&zoneid=5>
Ehlers, Marla (Grand Rapids Public. Library, Grand Rapids, MI). In October 2006,Civica and AdilamTechnologies, two software and RFID players in Australia, jointly announced that their UHF RFID library
applications have been installed in five different libraries in Australia and Singapore. E-mail message
thread with Corrie Marsh (The University of Texas – Pan American), July 19-20, 2010. Note: These fivelibraries were: Blacktown City Council Library, NSW, Australia; Victor Harbor Public Library, SA, Australia;
Loreto Mandeville Hall, VIC, Australia; Nanyang Girls' High School, Singapore; and Camden Council
Library Service, NSW, Australia.

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

68

EPC™ Radio-Frequency Identity Protocols: Class-1 Generation-2 UHF RFID Protocol for
Communications at 860 MHz – 960 MHz, version 1.2.0. EPCglobal Inc., October 23, 2008.
<http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal/uhfc1g2/uhfc1g2_1_2_0-standard-20080511.pdf>
IETF RFC 3629 UTF-8, A Transformation Format of ISO 10646. Internet Engineering Task Force,
November 2003. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629>
ISO 15511: 2009, Information and documentation – International Standard Identifier for Libraries andRelated Organizations (ISIL). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2009.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=52666>
ISO 28560-1:2011, Information and documentation – RFID in libraries – Part 1: Data elements andgeneral guidelines for implementation. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2011.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50996>
ISO 28560-2:2011, Information and documentation – RFID in libraries – Part 2: Encoding of RFID data
elements based on rules from ISO/IEC 15962. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization,
2011. <http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50997>
ISO 28560-3:2011, Information and documentation – RFID in libraries – Part 3: Fixed length encoding.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2011.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50998>
ISO/IEC 646:1991, Information technology – ISO 7-bit coded character set for information interchange.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1991.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=4777>
ISO/IEC 10646: 2011, Information technology – Universal Coded Character Set (UCS). Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization, 2011.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51273>
ISO/IEC 15961:2004, Information technology – Radio frequency identification (RFID) for item
management – Data protocol: application interface. Geneva: International Organization forStandardization, 2004.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=30528>
ISO/IEC 15962:204, Information technology – Radio frequency identification (RFID) for item management– Data protocol: data encoding rules and logical memory functions. Geneva: International Organizationfor Standardization, 2004.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=30529>
ISO/IEC 15693-1:2010, Identification cards – Contactless integrated circuit cards – Vicinity cards – Part 1:
Physical characteristics. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2010.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39694>
ISO/IEC 15693-2:2006, Identification cards – Contactless integrated circuit cards – Vicinity cards – Part 2:
Air interface and initialization. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39695>
ISO/IEC 15693-3:2009, Identification cards – Contactless integrated circuit cards – Vicinity cards – Part 3:
Anticollision and transmission protocol. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2009.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43467>
ISO/IEC 18000-3:2010, Information technology – Radio frequency identification for item management –Part 3: Parameters for an air interface communications at 13,56 MHz. Geneva: International Organizationfor Standardization, 2010.
<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53424>
Japanese Publisher Shogakukan Implements RFID Solution Using UPM Raflatac Tags to Reduce Return
Ratios and Waste. MoreRFID, December 10, 2008.
http://www.morerfid.com/details.php?subdetail=Report&action=details&report_id=5270&display=RFID

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

69

Molnar, David, and David Wagner. Privacy and Security in Library RFID: Issues, Practices, andArchitectures. 11th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, October 25-29, 2004,
Washington, D.C. <http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.71.6371>
Newitz, A. The RFID Hacking Underground. Wired, 14(5), pp. 166-171, May 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/rfid_pr.html>
ONIX Books Code Lists, Issue 13. EDItEUR, March 23, 2011. <http://www.editeur.org/14/Code-Lists/>
Progress Software Customer BGN Wins Prestigious RFID Visionary Award at 2006 RFID BreakthroughAwards. MoreRFID, November 20, 2006.
<http://www.morerfid.com/details.php?subdetail=Report&action=details&report_id=2355&display=RFID>
RFID enables book distribution system. RFIDNews, December 4, 2008.
<http://www.rfidnews.org/2008/12/04/rfid-enables-book-distribution-system>
Rieback, M. R., B. Crispo, and A. S. Tanenbaum. Is Your Cat Infected with a Computer Virus?
Proceedings of the 4th Annual IEEE International Conference: Pervasive Computing and Communication,
pp. 169-179, 2006. Washington, D.C.: IEEE Computer Society.
<http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/PERCOM.2006.32>
Rieback, M. R., B. Crispo, and A. S. Tanenbaum. RFID Malware: Truth vs. Myth. IEEE Security &Privacy, 4(4), pp. 70-72, July/August 2006.
<http://www.cs.vu.nl/~melanie/rfid_guardian/papers/ieeesp.06.pdf>
Sensormatic® Item-Level Intelligence Solutions from ADT® Boost Sales at the Netherlands' Largest
Bookseller. Boca Raton: Sensormatic Press Release, December 8, 2008.
<http://www.sensormatic.com/whoweare/prDetailprint.aspx?id=234>
Standards Australia Working Group IT-091-01-02. RFID for Libraries: Proposal for a Library RFID Data
Model (Draft 06). Nunawading, VI: Sybis, September 2006. <http://www.sybis.com.au/Sybis/4n597599%20proposal%20document.pdf>
UHF RFID – Libraries Taking the Next Step into the Future. Civica and Adilam Technologies joint press
release, October 2006.
<http://www.adilam.com.au/Civica%20UHF%20RFID%20IN%20Library%20applications%20Rev%20Jan%2007.pdf>
UK Library Operations Profile for ISO 28560-2. Book Industry Communication, March 2010.
<http://www.bic.org.uk/e4librariesfiles/pdfs/100301National%20Profile%20for%20ISO%20285602%20final.pdf>

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

70