At present, the ISO 28560 standard is actually developed in three (3) parts. One part defines the common elements of the standard. The second two parts discuss two different approaches to the standard, which results in two different encoding models.
ISO/CD 28560-1 Information and documentation -- Data model for use of radio frequency identifier (RFID) in librairies -- Part 1: General requirements and data elements
ISO/CD 28560-2 Information and documentation -- Data model for use of radio frequency identifier (RFID) in librairies -- Part 2: Encoding based on ISO/IEC 15962
ISO/CD 28560-3 Information and documentation -- Data model for use of radio frequency identifier (RFID) in librairies -- Part 3: Fixed length encoding
One of the biggest concerns we have is the absence of any requirement or structure for information other than item ID. The proposed standard suggests that the item ID will be written in two different models but that the item ID is the only required element.
Contrasting with the Danish Data Model, for example, the Model defines a specific location for owner library, country, media type, type of usage (circulation, non-circulating) and multi-item set information. When considering off-line circulation or automated materials handling (self-service returns), this additional data is invaluable. A model that provides information about media allows you to set rules at your self-service station and when off-line you can still track whether all items were in the multi-item set. It could permit continued sorting even when the ILS is out of service. The added information could be used to determine whether to sort an item (why sort if it's not your material?). It could refuse to check out an item that is reference material during an off-line transaction. Since SIP can affect the latency of any automated return solution, using tag data increases efficiency and speed.
The proposed standards permit extra data, but the structure of the data is not standard and the presence or absence of any data other than an item ID is up to the individual library. Further, that fact that the standard is actually two standards can lead to frustration or even confusion in the market. "Are you compliant with the ISO 28560 encoding standard?" A vendor could say yes, yet you would be unable to read those tags.
We applaud the concept and desire to create a universal, ratified standard. We will absolutely support both of the standards in the Renaissance system. But we want customers to know what you may be sacrificing when making a decision to use ONE of the TWO ISO standards when they are issued.
