Open Source Library Management Systems A Multidimensional Evaluation PDF

Australian Academic & Research Libraries
ISSN: 0004-8623 (Print) 1839-471X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarl20
Open Source Library Management Systems: A

Multidimensional Evaluation
Edmund Balnaves
To cite this article: Edmund Balnaves (2008) Open Source Library Management Systems:
A Multidimensional Evaluation, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 39:1, 1-13, DOI:
10.1080/00048623.2008.10721320
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2008.10721320
Published online: 08 Jul 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1564
View related articles
Citing articles: 9 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ualj21
OPEN SOURCE LIBRARY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS:
A MULTIDIMENSIONAL EVALUATION
Edmund Balnaves
Open source library management systems have

improved steadily in the last five years. They now
present a credible option for small to medium libraries
and library networks. An approach to their evaluation
is proposed that takes acount of three additional
dimensions that only open source can offer: the
developer and support community, the source code
characteristics and the information schema. These
dimensions allow for extended comparative product
review not generally possible with proprietary
software. This approach is applied to seven open
source systems and highlights the variety of design
approaches and the different library sectors that these
systems are suitable for.
AARL March 2008 vol 39 no 1 pp1-13.
Dr Edmund Balnaves, Prosentient Systems Pty Ltd,

Ultimo NSW 2007. E-mail: ejb@prosentient.com.au
D
uring the last decade there has been significant innovation in open source
systems (OSSs) for integrated library management. Commercial library
management systems (LMSs) have evolved to extend functionality from
acquisitions and circulation control to a range of other features integral to library
operation, and to meet increasing demands for complementary functions, such as
integration with learning management systems.1 Integrated LMSs are expected
to deliver the full breadth of OPAC, circulation, serials management, external
interfaces (especially Z39.50 compliance) and statistical reporting.
Australian Academic & Research Libraries March 2008 1

Edmund Balnaves
The first open source LMS, Koha, was released over a decade ago. Since that
time OSSs have shown sustained development of features and significant cross-
fertilisation of ideas based on shared experiences. Dorman has identified the
difficulty that open source LMSs may face in the context of a mature proprietary
system marketplace.2 Nevertheless, because libraries are turning increasingly to
OSSs to source their integrated LMSs and systems for a range of other functions3,
OSSs will increasingly feature as a mainstream option in the software selection
process for libraries. The technologies that drive Web 2.0 (dubbed Library 2.0
in their adoption by libraries) have also added new energy to the development of
open source integrated LMSs.
Evaluation of proprietary software has necessarily focused on evaluation across
two dimensions – the features of the system and the operational platform.
Software features can be compared and the merits, scalability and capability of
target platforms can be evaluated. With OSSs, it is not only the source code that
is open to inspection. OSS projects generally attempt to enlist the widest possible
collaboration in the software development process. As a result, their code change
processes, change methodology and planning processes are also published in
repositories such as SourceForge. Also available for inspection are the underlying
data design and the degree to which this endows flexibility to the application.
The open development process, therefore, also opens perspectives on:
• the community dimension – the nature of the development

community, the roadmap for enhancement and the level of
active participation in development;
• the source code dimension – the robustness of the coding, its
level of code reuse, and the level of code documentation, and;
• the schema dimension – the database schema and design.
ESTABLISHING EVALUATION CRITERIA

There is ample published literature examining proprietary LMSs, and now
a growing base of technical literature and blogs that review OSSs, including
notable contributions by Sturman4 and Breeding.5 The objective of this paper is
to discern the degree to which OSSs provide additional dimensions for software
review in the selection of LMSs.
The Business Readiness Rating (BRR) proposed by Carnegie Mellon West6 takes
a metrics-based approach to the evaluation of open source community software.
Cau, Concas and Marchesi argue that two key metrics for open source projects
are age and status, which, taken together, measure the success of an open source
project.7 Wheeler’s blog on OSS evaluation points to issues of supportability and
licensing model as important non-functional factors in OSS software selection.8
Equally important to the durability of an open source project is the existence
of an installed base – indeed many LMS open source projects have achieved a
critical mass through the patronage of one or more library networks.
2 Volume 39 Number 1 Australian Academic & Research Libraries

Open source library management systems
In selecting OSSs, both BRR and Wheeler suggest initial candidate filtering to
limit the selection to those systems with the best apparent fit, based on functional
and licensing issues – a process not dissimilar to shortlisting of proprietary
systems. This article proposes initial candidate selection of open source LMSs
based on the following extended criteria:
• source code is provided;

• the application is released under a recognised OSS licence;
• the development processes are public; and
• the system has a track record of adoption in libraries.
OPEN SOURCE LIBRARY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

There are already over 20 open source LMS projects of varying sizes visible
through SourceForge. It is not uncommon for OSS projects to last only a few
years and falter, either because of lack of ongoing patronage or lack of take-up9;
this is certainly evident in the case of LMS open source projects. Projects that are
clearly moribund or have no current installed base are not evaluated here. The
seven LMSs selected for analysis in this article are:
• Emilda – a small open source project with an attractive interface

and a good installed base in small libraries;
• Evergreen – a more recent OSS with a good installed base and
strong ‘hype’ in blogs;
• Gnuteca – a Brazilian OSS with strong installed base in non-
English speaking countries;
• Koha – the oldest open source LMS, with a strong installed
base;
• OpenBiblio – a system popular in small libraries, with simple
installation and an effective presentation;
• PhpMyLibrary – developed in the Philippines and released not
long after Koha, championing the use of MARC to facilitate
adoption, and;
• PMB – a French OSS with a strong installed base in Europe.
Although there is a range of open source licensing approaches, the popularly

adopted LMSs examined here all use the GNU General Public License.
Drummond provides a good review of alternative approaches to open source
licensing.10
Other projects, such as UNESCO’s WEBLIS LMS11, are provided as freeware. A
Koha offshoot called LearningAccess ILS (http://www.learningaccess.org/tools/
ils.php)12, much discussed in several open source blogs, has not yet been released
to open source. While these systems may well have strong functional merit, they
provide no visibility in their development processes and underlying code, so have
been excluded from this analysis.
Australian Academic & Research Libraries March 2008 3

Edmund Balnaves
EVALUATION OF LIBRARY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

For obvious competitive reasons, proprietary software suppliers generally
circulate minimal information about their internal development capacity, their
detailed roadmap for development and strategic intentions, the source code for
their systems, the internal development dialogue, and the detailed database
schema design. An evaluation of an LMS can examine the features supporting
its functions and its technical architecture:
• cataloguing and OPAC (authority control, record import, record

creation and record export, duplicate checking, thesaurus
management, search capability, documentation, web-based
visibility, saved search capability);
• circulation (client and lending capabilities, tracking, returns,
fines, notices, holds, recalls and reservations, and interlibrary
loans);
• serials management (journal ordering, receipting, missing issue
handling, claims and binding);
• acquisitions (ordering, making claims, receipting, budgeting
and associated reporting and tracking);
• management, reporting and auditing;
• documentation and end-user assistance;
• the available platforms (e.g. Linux vs. Windows);
• scalability;
• reliability; and,
• support infrastructure and costs.
This article proposes three additional dimensions in the evaluation of open

source LMSs, totalling five dimensions:
• the functional dimension – the degree to which open source

LMSs provide well-known LMS features, such as OPAC,
circulation, acquisitions and serials management, and end-user
documentation of these features;
• the architectural dimension – the application architecture, the
platform longevity, supportability and scalability;
• the community dimension – the level of activity in the
development community, the patronage and installed base of
the system, the open source licensing methodology, the existence
of service organisations and the roadmap for development;
• the code dimension – the code design, commenting and level
of code reuse through object-oriented programming (OOP) or
code inclusion;
• the schema dimension – the sophistication of the database
schema and the capability and documentation of the schema
design.

These dimensions differ from the BRR metrics both in their emphasis on the
community dimension of OSS support and in their inclusion of the schema in
the OSS analysis. A poorly designed schema can be a significant impediment
to integration of OSSs with other reporting and information services and
the sophistication of the product schema sheds considerable light on product
capability. Similarly the design approach of the code (good code reuse, object
orientation of design and schema) can facilitate extension of the system into new
areas and by third parties. The level of code documentation can be a factor in
the ease of participation and support for a system.
APPLYING THE FIVE DIMENSIONS

The table presented in the Appendix summarises the comparison of the seven
systems selected for analysis for each of the five dimensions. These systems serve
different audiences, a factor that would be difficult to accommodate in metrics-
based evaluation. A contingent factor in adoption of systems has been the degree
to which the systems have a support base and the flexibility to be implemented
across language boundaries. A further contingent factor is the complexity of the
system measured against the size of the operation it is intended for. Emilda, for
instance, clearly has a level of popularity based on its ease of implementation,
despite its functional deficiencies.
All seven systems analysed depend on other open source projects – for their
database systems (MYSQL and PostgreSQL), for their web services (Apache) and
for programming (PHP, Perl and C). Several OSSs have leveraged the productive
work of other open source projects for library systems – in particular Zebra/
Yaz for search engine support. All favour a Linux platform for implementation.
Although Windows implementations are possible, all of the systems are generally
more complex to deploy in the Windows environment and none of them offers a
complete installer for Windows. Those with a LAMP (Linux, Apache, MYSQL and
PHP) foundation have the advantage of simplicity of code deployment in an out-
of-the-box Linux environment. Some, such as Emilda, are more accommodating
of Windows deployment, as they support IIS (Internet Information Services) as
well as Apache, but still require the installation of PHP and MYSQL.
The most active projects, Koha, Evergreen and PMB, are innovative in areas of
Web 2.0 support and are extending the core set of features in the applications.
The existence of widgets for Koha signals the popularity of the product, and, more
importantly, the alpha release of Koha 3.0 makes use of Google Gears for local
and remote operation of the circulation module. All projects have some way to
go in full multilingual implementation. Most implement a utf-8 Unicode schema
and some form of ‘skinning’ to allow user interface language customisation.
All systems fall short of implementing double-byte Unicode (utf-16) in their
default schema and do not support complex searching in Chinese, Japanese
and Korean scripts. Any library looking for this capability faces the prospect of
customisation, although several OSSs are moving in this direction. MARC has
been the predominant influence in schema design; the Functional Requirements
for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model has not yet had a significant influence
Australian Academic & Research Libraries March 2008

5
Edmund Balnaves
at this level of application design. The move to an abstract descriptive model in

the Koha 3 beta version heralds the emergence of transformation approaches to
yielding RDF and FRBR views of bibliographic data.
The many contingent factors in selection make a purely metric-based selection
problematic. Where a system needs additional customisation to suit a particular
library setting, understanding the additional dimensions will help selection of the
most suitable system.
Koha (www.koha.org)
Koha is well-known as the oldest open source LMS, with a rich set of features.
Koha has not won a lot of friends in the Windows community, with many reports
of implementation difficulties.13 Even in a Linux environment, the multi-stage
installation is based on quite raw technical notes. The architecture, based on
PERL, MYSQL and Apache, is stable in a Linux environment. The Koha
development community is active, and this is reflected in solid wiki resources for
developers and strong development and code management guidelines. Several
commercial services provide implementation and ongoing support. Koha also
has a diverse installed base, which gives an assurance of ongoing viability. It is
suitable in a multi-site library operation. The beta release of version 3.0 seeks to
address many cross-platform issues and provide better multilingual support. It
also introduces Web 2.0 features, including local/remote operation of circulation
using Google Gears, and the adoption of Zebra to enhance searching is welcome
and will enhance scalability. The Perl language base may not be popular in the
long term among developers and implementers of the system. While concerns
have been expressed regarding scalability, there are many techniques for load
balancing and multi-server implementation that would support a Koha base.
Evergreen (www.open-ils.org)
One of the newest open source applications, Evergreen has created a very
positive buzz in the LMS open source blogs. Its schema and code design include
strong OOP philosophy. It does not yet have the functional maturity of Koha and
PMB, but shows promising potential in its underlying code and schema design. It
has a large network installed base, including the Georgia Library PINES network
of over 200 libraries. Evergreen, like Koha, has a CGI (Common Gateway
Interface) mode of server operation, but has clearly been able to support the
PINES network.
Gnuteca (www.gnuteca.org.br)
This Brazilian OSS has a strong Portuguese installed base. It has recently
been translated into French at the University of Lyon. The code exhibits good
OOP design traits, but there is minimal code commenting and documentation.
Functionality has yet to fully mature, but it exhibits a good design foundation.
This is an interesting project that could benefit from further internationalisation
work.

PMB (www.pizz.net / www.sigb.net)

PMB has functional richness nearly equivalent to Koha, with a better code
and schema design framework. Installation is relatively simple. It has some
internationalisation support, but has largely been implemented in European
libraries, and is strongest in its French support base. Although it is multilingual
in template design, the default schema does not implement utf-16. A range of
functions and templates are easily configured by the administrative user through
the application front-end. Although it has some fines, acquisitions support and
serials management, it is weaker in this area than Koha. It has, however, gone
further in exploring Web 2.0 features. With a PHP/MYSQL base and good use of
classes for code reuse, it is probably the most elegant of the current offerings for a
small multi-library network setting. Strengthening of implementation examples
in English will improve its adoption outside continental Europe.
Emilda (www.emilda.org); Openbiblio (obiblio.sourceforge.net);

PHPMyLibrary (www.PhpMyLibrary.org)
These three systems address a very different market from their larger open
source equivalents. PhpMyLibrary is nearly as old as Koha, and has influenced
the direction of open source development by demonstrating the effectiveness of
integrating MARC support. These smaller systems have attractive interfaces and
use easily deployed PHP/MYSQL platforms. Their schema complexity underlines
the functional gulf between these systems and their larger peers. However their
small size also gives these systems a certain nimbleness in the simplicity of their
installation and the attractiveness of their user interfaces.
While these systems have weaknesses in support for acquisitions, serials
management and more complex circulation control, they have a track record
of simpler installation. The lack of multi-branch networking, acquisitions and
other advanced features may not be problematic in small library settings,
such as school libraries or small research libraries, where the principal focus
is circulation control. Of these systems, Emilda shows the most active release
profile. These systems particularly emphasise the contingent factors in suitability
of OSS – most particularly library size and type of library.
CONCLUSION
There is a healthy variety of open source LMSs serving both individual libraries
and large library networks. In 2002, Breeding, although optimistic about the
prospects for open source LMSs, indicated that ‘the handful that use open source
systems cannot yet be noted as a trend’.14 In the six years since his review the
functionality and installed base of open source LMSs have evolved considerably.
Interest in Web 2.0 functionality has opened an opportunity for these systems in
an otherwise mature LMS market. These OSS projects show a variety of design
approaches, have solid patronage and good user and developer community
engagement. The emergence of support organisations such as LibLime that
provide support for several different OSSs is a further indicator of the growing
maturity of the open source LMS marketplace.

5
Edmund Balnaves
Koha, Evergreen and PMB demonstrate very active developer communities with
secure institutional backing. Their code base and schema show solid technical
evolution and these systems have been nimble in their accommodation of new
Library 2.0 innovations. PMB and Gnuteca have a strong non-English language
installation and support base. While Koha shows the most sophistication in
managing the open source development process, Evergreen and Gnuteca exhibit
strong object-oriented design philosophy in their code and schema design.
Emilda, OpenBiblio and PhpMyLibrary continue to have a role in serving
the small libraries because of their relative ease of implementation and simple,
intuitive interfaces.
A multidimensional view of OSSs will enable better decision making at the
point of system selection. The success of software has never been solely down
to the technical merits of a system. The adopted base of software is, of course,
one of the most significant elements of software, both in sponsorship for further
enhancement and development and in assuring a degree of technical awareness
of the product that encourages adoption. In this respect, particularly, the analysis
of all five dimensions suggested in this report gives a more complete insight into
the current state of each system.
As an afterword, many organisations are bound to their existing systems due to
the complexity of transferring their current information base. However, MARC
has provided a core common semantic base to facilitate the adoption of different
systems through MARC export/import processes. It is a credit to this long-
standing ontology that it still serves such a functional purpose.
NOTES
1. Alison Felstead ‘The Library Systems Market: A Digest of Current Literature’
Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems 2004 vol 38 no 2
pp88-96.
2. D Dorman ‘The Case for Open Source Software in the Library Market’
Ubiquity 2004 vol 4 no 47 accessed 18 Jan 2008 at http://www.acm.org/
ubiquity/views/pf/v4i47_dorman.pdf.
3. E Herbert ‘How Open Source Software Can Improve Our Library’ accessed
18 Jan 2008 at http://www.degreetutor.com/library/managing-expenses/
open-source-library.
4. R Sturman ‘Il Software Open Source per la Gestione Integrata delle
Biblioteche: Una Nuova Risorsa?’ BollettinoAIB 2004 vol 44 no 3
pp257-270.
5. M Breeding ‘An Update on Open Source ILS’ Information Today 2002
vol 19 no 9 pp42-43 accessed 6 March 2008 at http://www.infotoday.com/
IT/oct02/breeding.htm.

6. A Wasserman, M Pal and C Chan ‘The Business Readiness Rating:

A Framework for Evaluating Open Source’ in EFOSS - Evaluation
Framework for Open Source Software 2006 Grand Hotel Como Italy
accessed 18 Jan 2008 at http://www.openbrr.org/como-workshop/papers/
WassermanPalChan_EFOSS06.pdf.
7. A Cau, G Concas and M Marchesi ‘Extending OpenBRR with Automated
Metrics to Measure Object Oriented Open Source Project Success’ in
EFOSS - Evaluation Framework for Open Source Software 2006 Grand
Hotel Como Italy accessed 18 Jan 2008 at http://www.openbrr.org/como-
workshop/papers/CauConcasMarchesi_EFOSS06.pdf.
8. D Wheeler How to Evaluate Open Source Software/Free Software (OSS/FS)
Programs 2008 accessed 18 Jan 2008 at http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_
eval.html.
9. Cau, Concas and Marchesi op cit.
10. J Drummond Open Source Software and Documents: A Literature and
Online Resource Review 2000 accessed 21 Jan 2008 at http://www.omar.
org/opensource/litreview/.
11. UNESCO Logiciel de base de données CDS/ISIS: WEBLIS 2007 accessed
18 Jan 2008 at http://portal.unesco.org/ci/fr/ev.php-URL_ID=16841&URL_
DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
12. Herbert op cit.
13. P X Chalon et al. ‘Open Your Mind! Selecting and Implementing an
Integrated Library System: the Open-source Opportunity’ in Europe as an
Open Book: 10th European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries
Cluj-Napoca Romania 11-16 September 2005 accessed 12 Jan 2008 at
http://www.eahilconfcluj.ro/docs/1b/chalon&al2006_text.pdf.
14. Breeding op cit.

5
APPENDIX. Multidimensional comparison of open source library management systems
Functional dimension Architecture Community Code dimension Schema dimension
10
dimension dimension
KOHA Extensive user base. Perl/CGI. Appears to have a GNU General Public Databases supported:
very active developer License. Code structure: MYSQL.
Strong support for Installation and stability
community and several procedural design, with
OPAC, circulation, issues in Windows. 74 tables in the schema.
support companies extensive use of core set
serials, acquisitions and
Linux implementation – most notably LibLime. of classes. Default schema does not use
reporting, including a
popular and stable. double-byte Unicode.
Edmund Balnaves
range of third- party First release was 2000 Some abstracted

add-ons. with 10 version/sub- database classes.
Volume 39 Number 1
Uses Zebra for search Schema design and code
engine in v3.0. version releases since. MYSQL specific.
Support for MARC21 Version 3 beta addresses
and UniMARC. CGI-based web design Installation appears to Unicode multilingual In version-3 beta, Unicode
could limit scalability. be a point of focus in issues in the default support has greatly improved
Add-on modules have
version 3 beta. schema and user and Zebra is adopted for
demonstrated web
interface ‘skinning’, search; a more flexible
services and RDF Has an active roadmap
and supports additional SGML-like schema replaces
delivery of bibliographic showing progress against
databases. the MARC base.
data. planned features.
Active documentation Table schema is partially
Faceted searching Google Scholar
project. Average changes documented with a number
included in core system. references: 76.
per annum: 887. Code of sample data sets.
comments averaging 49
lines/function/page.
EMILDA For single-site library. PHP/XML/Perl with An active project. GNU General Public Databases supported:
some Zebra, Yaz, Perl. License. Procedural MYSQL.
OPAC and circulation, Developed & supported
Requires Apache. design with some
with limited support by RealNode. First 24 tables in the schema.
inclusion-based code
for acquisitions and no Straightforward release 2004-01-22.
reuse and an API. Default schema does not use
serials management. implementation on Latest release 2005-06-
Linux. Windows 29 version 1.2.3 (used No abstracted database double-byte Unicode.
Principally book-
installation possible, for evaluation) with classes (embedded SQL). Schema design and code
oriented schema.
but requires multi-step 5 version/subversion MYSQL specific.
Uses SourceForge

Clean user interface. installation. releases. It has a wish-
list based through - average changes No abstract database classes.
MARC support (via discussion lists. Google released to SourceForge: Schema oriented to book-
Zebra). Scholar references: 11. 110 per annum. based OPAC/circulation.
Some page/function and
code documentation
averaging 32 lines per
function/page.
APPENDIX. Multidimensional comparison of open source library management systems (continued)

dimension dimension
PHPMYLIBRARY Principally oriented to a PHP. Requires Apache. Developed in the GNU General Public Databases supported:
single-site library. Straightforward Philippines, it is a License. Code structure: MYSQL.
implementation best marginally active some reuse classes but
OPAC and circulation 23 tables in the schema.
on Linux (Apache and project with limited minor code reuse.
management, with Default schema does not use
MYSQL preinstalled). participants, but a
minimal acquisitions Good use of templating double-byte Unicode.
significant installed base.
and serials management. Windows installation for user interface.
Schema design and code are
possible, but requires First release 2001.
Early implementation of No abstracted data MYSQL specific.
multi-step installation. Current release is
MARC support. classes but use of
2.2.1-3 (2007). Minimal Schema principally oriented
separate database
activity between the to OPAC and circulation
update functions.
2003 & 2007 release. support for a book-based
Some page/function service in a single-site library
Release 2.0 focuses on

comments and some setting.
serials and acquisitions.
code comments.
Roadmap skeleton in
Average comments per
place. Google Scholar
function/page: 34.
references: 17.
SourceForge and code.
google.com
OPENBIBLIO Principally oriented to PHP . An active project with GNU General Public Databases supported:
single-site library. marginal activity and License. Code structure: MYSQL.
Straightforward OOP.
limited participants.
Supports OPAC and implementation and 24 tables in the schema.
circulation for a book- operates comfortably First release in 2002 to Use of classes to achieve Default schema does not use
based service, with in Linux (Apache and beta on SourceForge. code reuse and good use double-byte Unicode.
minimal acquisitions MYSQL preinstalled). Llatest release was on of abstract data classes.
Like PhpMyLibrary, schema
and serials management. Windows installation 0.6.0 in 2007. Has a
Some code comments design and code are MYSQL
straightforward, but roadmap (no tracking)
MARC support. – mainly function specific but with some class
multi-step. through wiki.
descriptions. Average abstraction of database.
March 2008
Google Scholar comments per class/ Schema is principally

references: 18. page: 36. oriented to OPAC and
circulation support for a
11
book-based service in a single-
site library setting.
12
dimension dimension
EVERGREEN Suitable for multiple C++, Perl, Python. Appears to have active GNU General Databases supported:
branch library network. Requires Apache. developer community. Public License. OOP PostgreSQL.
Installation and support philosophy evident in
Strong support of Straightforward 104 tables in the schema.
is available through code and schema.
OPAC and circulation implementation, best on Default schema does not use
Edmund Balnaves
LibLime. First release

functions, with limited Linux. Average comments double-byte Unicode.
Volume 39 Number 1
1.2.0.1 in 2007. 3 major
acquisitions and serials per page/function
CGI-based server releases since. Schema design and code
management. – 10. Comments are
design but has scaled PostgreSQL specific, and
They have a roadmap principally inline, many
MARC support. to a network of several PostgreSQL has some
(wiki-based, no functions with minimal
hundred libraries. Has Unicode issues.
Supports faceted tracking). code documentation.
a Windows installer for
searching. OOP design The table schema is well
the staff client. Google Scholar Mixture of embedded
facilitates integration of documented and has an
references: 69. SQL and supporting
Web 2.0/AJAX features. object-oriented philosophy.
database classes.
GNUTECA Suitable for multiple Perl/PHP. Requires An active project, with CC-GNU General Databases supported:
branch library network. Apache Best on Linux, discussion-list based Public License. PostgreSQL.
but CGI-based web feature request.
Supports OPAC and Good OOP design and 31 tables in the schema.
design could limit
some elements of First released: gnuteca- use of classes for code Default schema does not use
scalability.
circulation, serials, 0.1 in 2001. Current reuse. double-byte Unicode.
acquisitions, and a range Windows installation is release is Gnuteca 1.7.
Good use of abstract Schema design and code
of reporting functions. possible, but requires RC2 in 2007 with 9
classes for database PostgreSQL specific.
Documentation in multi-step installation. major version/sub-
access.

Portuguese. versions since inception. Schema diagram available.
Google Scholar Minimal code
MARC support. references: 7. documentation (average
1 line per class excluding
standard headers).

dimension dimension
PMB Suitable for multiple PHP. Requires Apache. An active project, with CeCILL (originally Databases supported:
branch library network. Straightforward multi- several installation and GNU General Public MYSQL.
step implementation. support organisations License) a French free
Supports OPAC, 127 tables in the schema.
exist, principally the licensing approach
circulation, acquisitions, Principal installations Default schema does not use
French PMB Services. largely compatible with
serials management and currently French/ utf-16.
GNU GPL.
a range of reporting European. Has a roadmap (wiki-
Schema design and code
functions. based, no tracking). Some OOP design with
English templates are MYSQL specific.
good use of PHP classes
Good support for available, but they are Google Scholar for effective code reuse. Documented principally in
internationalisation. only partially complete. references: 33.
French, but with supporting
Some embedding of
MARC support. documentation for alternative

SQL in application
language installation.
PHP base and pages and some use
strong schema have of abstract database Table schema is partially
encouraged AJAX classes. documented with a number
and other plug-in of sample data sets.
Some code
development. documentation (average
57 lines per class).
March 2008
13

Open Source Library Management Systems A Multidimensional Evaluation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Open Source Library Management Systems A Multidimensional Evaluation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Australian Academic & Research Libraries

ISSN: 0004-8623 (Print) 1839-471X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarl20