Adapting open source for a union catalogue in Kenya is not impossible. This is made feasible by the fact that there exist several successful union catalogs in the world. Of importance, is the agreement between the participating libraries. This is the hurdle that must be overcome before any progress is realized in this direction. There are libraries in Kenya that have implemented open source ILS for long enough to provide the necessary expertise or input to help in the actual implementation. Koha seems to have gained much mileage in Kenya as observed earlier on. The experiences with it by the different libraries will come in handy when deciding on which software to adapt for the union catalogue.

1. Open Source Software for implementation of Union
Catalogue for Kenya
By
Beatrice Adera Amollo
Head of Library & Resources,
Australian Studies Institute (AUSI), Nairobi, Kenya
May, 2011
Paper presented at:
Workshop on ‘Modalities of Establishing a Union Catalogue for Kenya and the
Standardized Integration of Local Content into a Union Catalogue, on 4th – 5th May,
2011 and thereafter at the UN/University Librarians Workshop at the Kenya College of
Accountancy (KCA) on 19th May, 2011
1

2. Contents
Union Catalogue ....................................................................................................................... 4
Desirable features of a good library catalog ............................................................................. 7
Prerequisite for a good union catalogue.................................................................................... 8
Bibliographic Database Standards ........................................................................................ 8
Cataloguing standards ........................................................................................................... 9
Communications format ...................................................................................................... 10
Language and script of cataloguing .................................................................................... 11
Cataloguing software used in libraries found in Kenya .......................................................... 11
Open source solutions and their suitability ............................................................................. 12
Some of the reasons why libraries migrate to open source software .................................. 12
Infrastructural and cost requirements: Proprietary versus Open ......................................... 12
Installation and data migration requirements ...................................................................... 13
Selecting software for the catalogue ....................................................................................... 13
Recommended software for the union catalogues .................................................................. 14
Koha .................................................................................................................................... 15
Koha's architecture .......................................................................................................... 16
Koha’s key Cataloguing features ..................................................................................... 17
Migrating data to Koha .................................................................................................... 18
Evergreen ............................................................................................................................ 18
Evergreen's architecture ................................................................................................... 19
Migrating data to Evergreen ............................................................................................ 20
Possible challenges. ................................................................................................................ 22
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 22
References ............................................................................................................................... 23
List of Tables
Table 1: ILS in some Kenya libraries (as per the time of writing this paper) ......................... 11
Table 2: Comparison of Koha and Evergreen, based on the qualities that make a good catalog
................................................................................................................................................. 15
2

3. List of Figures
Figure 1: Traditional union catalogue ....................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Virtual Union catalogue ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 3: A workflow chart for the creation of Union Catalogue for books .......................... 10
Figure 4: ILS Selection Methodology..................................................................................... 14
Figure 5: Koha's architecture .................................................................................................. 17
Figure 6: Pines library search page, gateway to 275 libraries ................................................ 19
3

4. Union Catalogue
A library catalogue is an enumeration of all information material or items found in a library
or group of libraries. It contains bibliographic details and/or full text of what the library holds
and is intended for a target audience. Liu & Zheng (2011) add that the library catalogue is an
integral part in today's integrated library system (ILS) and has been a primary tool for users
to search and locate physical materials at a library for several decades. The card catalog has
been effectively replaced by the online public access catalog (OPAC)
A union catalog comprises of listing of information materials, of more than one library
accessed online from a single point of access. It aggregates the bibliographic details of the
collections of a number of libraries. There are two types of union catalogues:
1. Traditional, where records from multiple sources are incorporated into a single
database.
◦ Uses ISO 2709 standard - Information and documentation—Format for
information exchange.
◦ MARC21 is coded using this format
Figure 1: Traditional union catalogue
Source: Research
4

5. 2. Virtual
◦ Each catalogue remains distinct, but treated by the end-user as a single
resource.
 Uses Z39.50 Search and Retrieve standard
Figure 2: Virtual Union catalogue
Source: Research
Union catalogs assists in locating and requesting materials from other libraries through
interlibrary loan service. They allow library users to search through the various libraries’
collections as though they were searching their own library. The users may request materials
through the union catalog and have the transaction handled completely as a circulation
transaction otherwise known as circulation-based resource sharing. The participating libraries
in the union catalogue, of course, are free to specify whether their collection is available for
Interlibrary Loan.
One of the well known union catalog containing one of the largest and giant electronic
databases is WorldCat. WorldCat is a union catalog which itemizes the collections of 71,000
libraries in 112 countries which participate in the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)
5

6. global cooperative. It is built and maintained collectively by the participating
libraries.(Kipaan & Nabusan, 2010)
The logical function of any union catalogue is resource sharing and document supply and it is
high time that member libraries make use of this database in order to initiate such services.
Before the advent of CD-ROMs and the worldwide web, online access or searching meant
that connections were made to a remote computer via a modem to perform literature
searches. The growth of online public access catalogues (OPAC) and online searching has
come to mean the searching of any computerized database, no matter where it is situated,
whether on a PC’s hard disk, on a CD-ROM, or on a remote database server. (Chand &
Chauhan, 2008)
In their general review of the union catalogues, Chelak & Azadeh (2010) highlight the
advantages of union catalogue. They list the following advantages for the library:
Facilities for cataloguing and improvements in the speed of cataloguing.
Increase in the supply of quality records, both bibliographic and authority.
Development and maintenance of mutually acceptable standards.
Development of a document supply service.
Development of joint collections, printed and electronic ones.
Links to document suppliers and electronic journals.
Use of shared resources.
Ongoing discussion, planning and programming among participant libraries.
The production of a national bibliographic network
Reduction in acquisition and cataloguing expenses.
The advantages for users include among others:
confirmation of the existence of an item;
accurate known locations for an item;
availability at those known locations;
timeframe for user need; and
licensing controls and authorization.
6

7. Desirable features of a good library catalog
The next generation catalog has been discussed and ideas presented in several library fora.
Some of the qualities drawn from a presentation by Yang, Hofmann & Weeks in 2009 at a
conference include:-
1. Single point of entry for all library information. The library catalog should allow
single search of or for all library materials. This includes records of all print items and
links to the library’s electronic databases and digital collections. One search should
retrieve all the relevant materials.
2. Web interface. Library catalog should look and feel like popular search engines such
as Google or Yahoo. It should have a modern design similar to commercial, e-
business sites.
3. Enriched content. A good library catalog could have book cover images, user driven
input such as comments, descriptions, ratings, and tag clouds.
4. Categorized searching. Library catalogs should be able to display the search results
as sets of categories based on some criterion such as dates, languages, availability,
formats, locations, etc. Users can conduct a very simple, initial search by their
preferred keyword method and then refine their results by clicking on the various
results facets.
Simple keyword search box on every page. The catalog should start with a simple
keyword search box that looks like that of the various search engines. A link to the
‘advanced search’ option should also be provided. The simple search box should
appear on every page of the interface as users navigate and conduct searches.
Librarians prefer an advanced search and feel that the quick search is more likely to
produce results with less precision.
5. Relevancy. The catalog should rank performed searches by relevancy. This should be
with as much precision as possible.
6. Recommendations/related materials. A good catalog should recommend books for
readers on transaction logs. This should take the form of “Readers who borrowed this
book also borrowed the following … ” or a link to “Recommended Readings”.
7. User contribution. The catalog should allow users to add data to records. The user
input includes descriptions, summaries, reviews, criticism, comments, rating and
ranking, and tagging. Today's users increasingly look for what other users have to
7

8. say about items found online, and value what they feel to be their peers' review of
items.
8. RSS feeds. Really Simple Syndication allows users to connect themselves to content
that is often updated. The catalog interface could include RSS feeds so that users can
have new book lists, top-circulating book lists and “watch this topic” connections to
the catalog on their own blog or feed reader page.
9. Integration with social network sites. When a library's catalog is integrated with
social network sites, patrons can share links to library items with their friends on
social networks like Facebook and Twitter.
10. Persistent links. There should be stable URLs, capable of being copied and pasted
and serving as a permanent link to individual library records.
Prerequisite for a good union catalogue
Bibliographic Database Standards
Even though there are common standards for all libraries, it is common to find that catalogue
records in most databases are different; they do not conform to one specific cataloguing
standard. Lack of consistency, typographical errors and uniformity would be the main
challenge in setting up the union catalogue. The individual library databases may also contain
records in various formats, which would lead to much complication and editing of records.
If different libraries are to merge their records or decide to use a single point for access to all
their collections, then compromises have to be met and standards set to ensure uniformity
and ease of access for the final users.
There are several accepted standards and norms that have been adapted by the libraries to
ensure professionalism and conformity. Professionals in the field of librarianship must at one
point be trained on the adapted standards and methods for cataloguing.
The standards ensure that the union catalogue help the libraray to fulfill its functions. The
Alliance Library system (ALS, 1999) of Illinois in America outlines four library activities in
its bibliographic database standards, that depend on a good union catalogue. These are:
8

9. 1. Patron access to all the libraries’ resources. Any participating library should be
able to place a complete catalog of all its holdings in any location where a terminal
can be installed. Accuracy, timeliness and consistency in the data entry is therefore
important.
2. Enhanced circulation services to patrons. Services like holds, and inquiry into a
book's status should be possible. This can only be accomplished if the entry for the
book is accurate and access points are provided.
3. Resource sharing. The exchange of information among libraries requires consistency
of entry. It is imperative for all the libraries to provide cataloging and access
information consistently and accurately for the benefit of other libraries, as well as for
local patrons.
4. Item conversion and maintenance. Rapid, accurate conversion and maintenance of
item information is crucial. This is greatly enhanced by accurate and complete
cataloging information.
Cataloguing standards
It is essential that every member library provides accurate and standard data by using agreed
upon bibliographic standards. Since the computer cannot distinguish between good and
substandard cataloging, each library has to accept the responsibility of abiding by the
standards.
Some examples of some internationally accepted developed standards for record input
include:
Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, for bibliographic description.
Library of Congress Subject Headings.
OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards. Full MARC coding (tags, indicators and
subfield codes) is required on all fields input
Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI)
Dewey Decimal Classification
MARC21
9

10. Participating libraries have to agree on the standards to adapt and the steps to be follow by
all. Figure 3 belowillustrates the typical procedure for developing a union catalogue. The
level of cataloguing should also be decided. In addition to already set library standards, the
libraries should be free to set local standards to suit the specific needs and requirements of a
database containing locally produced information material.
Figure 3: A workflow chart for the creation of Union Catalogue for books
Adapted from Chand & Chauhan (2008)
Communications format
Converting printed catalogue to machine-readable bibliographic records is done via fields,
which include tags, subfields and field delimiters. All the participating libraries must be
ready to use the common format to ease transfer or uploading of data. Simplified guidelines
regarding the use of format should be published and distributed to all the libraries.
For instance, MARC has provided a core common semantic base to facilitate the adoption of
different systems through MARC export/import processes.
10

11. Language and script of cataloguing
Since Cataloguing rules are not static and respond to changing needs, the union catalogue
will need to conform to our unique and local needs. To accommodate information material
that is non-English, the union catalogue will include vernacular data so as to support resource
discovery of our extensive non-English collections. The language of cataloguing however
should still remain English.
Cataloguing software used in libraries found in Kenya
Most libraries in Kenya have installed in-house or commercial ILS to serve their cataloguing
needs. The decision concerning what software or system to install is usually made by the
Librarian. The librarian bases this decision on the allocated budget from the parent
institution, size of the library’s collection and perceived suitability of the software. Suitability
may be based on the impression given by the vendor or the popularity of the software in
other similar libraries.
ILS software installed in a few sampled libraries in Kenya are given in the table below.
Table 1: ILS in some Kenya libraries (as per the time of writing this paper)
Institution Software
AUSI Koha
Commission of Higher education Koha
Egerton University AMLIB
Gretsa University Koha
ILRI InMagic
Inoorero University Mandarin
Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Koha
Kenya Polytechnic University Koha
Kenyatta University Koha
KIM Koha
Moi University In progress
St. Paul’s University Koha
Strathmore Koha
11

12. University of Nairobi VUBIS
USIU Symphony
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) InMagic
Source: Research
Several libraries in Kenya have migrated or adapted OSS and Koha seems to be the main
choice for those opting for an open source solution.
Open source solutions and their suitability
Examples of open source ILS include Emilda, Evergreen, Gnuteca, InfoCid, Jayuya, Koha,
NewGenLib, oBiblio, OPALS, OpenAmapthe`que, OpenBiblio, PhpMyLibrary, PMB and
Senayan.
Some of the reasons why libraries migrate to open source software
Disillusionment with current vendors
Open source is seen as a solution to:
o Allow libraries to have more flexible systems
o Lower costs
Not be vulnerable to disruptions that come with mergers and acquisitions
Open source is beginning to emerge as a mainstream option.
No vendor lock in.
Even though the initial cost might be minimal, in the long run, the TOC (Total Cost of
Ownership) is still roughly equal to proprietary commercial model
Infrastructural and cost requirements: Proprietary versus Open
 Costs shifted from traditional software licensing models. There is no initial purchase
of license or annual license fees
 Hardware costs are the same for both.
12

13.  Vendor support costs. This is optional for open source but almost mandatory for
proprietary.
 Hosting and Conversion services same in both.
 Local technical support may be higher in the open source option.
Installation and data migration requirements
To install and migrate data to an open source ILS, the services of a systems librarian or
librarian with technical or IT skill will be required. Most of the open source communities
have strived to develop manual and documentation that makes it possible for the systems
librarian to learn how to do this. The support communities ensure that users and developers
interact to sustain effective use of the open source systems.
Library professionals without technical training can also make use of OSS applications,
which alleviates the library's need for lengthy prior training. Most Open Source software
products do not require knowledge of programming or mark-up languages in order to
implement or customize an OSS product. (Payne & Singh, 2010)
Selecting software for the catalogue
Before choosing suitable software, one must select and evaluate several. There are quite a
number of open source ILS in the market currently. Müller (2011) states that the three most
common things to consider when selecting OSS are the licensing agreements, support
community and functionalities of the software. (Figure I)
13

14. Figure 4: ILS Selection Methodology
Source: Müller, 2011, p. 59
Recommended software for the union catalogues
Based on the three evaluation factors suggested by Müller (2011) above and the good
qualities of a library catalog (Yang, Hofmann & Weeks, 2009), the author recommends Koha
and Evergreen as the most suitable open source software for the union catalogue. Evergreen
supports state-wide consortium while Koha is used in a multi-site public library systems.
The two are the most suitable even though they do not posses all the qualities of a next
generation online catalog. A comparison of the two OSS has also been made, based on the
above listed desirable qualities of a good catalog. (Table 2)
14

15. Table 2: Comparison of Koha and Evergreen, based on the qualities that make a good catalog
The two systems still require some work to improve on the missing qualities. Koha possess
most of the qualities than any other OSS.
Koha
Koha was developed in New Zealand by Katipo Communications Ltd and first went live in
Jan 2000 in Horowhenua Library Trust. It was the first Open Source Library Management
System and is widely used all over the world by all types of libraries. It is a fully featured
library system with all the common modules you would expect from a modern ILS. It
includes Searching, Circulation, Cataloguing, Acquisitions and Serials.
It has a web client which means there is no need to install any client software on user
computers. It only needs a browser. However Koha is developed with Firefox as the
preferred platform and some of the features may not work properly with Internet Explorer.
Koha’s OPAC has plenty of Web 2.0 features, RSS feeds, Tags, Reviews, Book Covers and
Faceted Searching. (Table 2).
15

16. The standard Cataloguing module lets you work in Marc21 or Unimarc. There is an
alternative Cataloguing module called biblios, also free, that has a more technical Marc look
and feel for experienced cataloguers, and includes access to a co-operative type repository of
Marc records.
Koha has over 500 libraries committed to it from different parts of the world.
f
Koha’s features outlined:
 Full-featured ILS: Koha has modules for circulation, cataloging, acquisitions, serials,
reserves, patron management, branch relationships, and more.
 Dual database design: Koha supports both text based and real time database
management systems.
 Library standards compliant: Koha’s interoperability with other systems and
technologies makes it attractive. It supports existing library work flows and tools.
 Web based interface: Koha has a very user friendly web based interface which uses
web technologies like XHTML, CSS & Javascript.
 No vendor: since Koha is an open source project, there is no vendor lock in. Anyone
can participate in its development.
 Usability: The online public access catalog (OPAC) is user friendly.
 Basic performance: The average query is handled quickly enough to meet user
expectations. (www.koha.org; Zico, 2009)
Koha's architecture
Koha runs on the Linux, Apache2, MySQL, Perl (LAMP) platform:
1. Linux: The operating system
2. Apache2: The web server
3. MySQL: The database server
4. Perl: Koha is written in the Perl programming language
16

17. Figure 5: Koha's architecture
Source: Sirohi & Gupta, 2010
To install Koha one requires to:
Install various packages related to:
o The Koha architecture above—Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl
o The Koha application itself
Build and compiler programs that help with the installation
Various Perl and non Perl packages that Koha uses, along with their own
prerequisites.
Koha’s key Cataloguing features
Koha's MARC frameworks
MARC frameworks are cataloging templates for different types of material in the library.
Koha's MARC frameworks are a way to simplify catalog data entry, also to control what gets
entered.
Authority Control & Authorized values
Data entry into bibliographic fields can be controlled using Authority Control. Bibliographic
cataloguers cannot enter text in fields under Authority Control; they can only pick values
from the list of authority records.
Authorized values are Koha’s additional way of controlling data entry. These are lists of
values that can be linked to any bibliographic field or subfield. Catalogers are not able to
enter free text in fields that are controlled through authorized values; they are only able to
17

18. pick values from a list. Like Authority Control, authorized values help reduce errors and
bring about consistency in catalog records.
Migrating data to Koha
Migrating catalog data from previous library system is a prerequisite to using Koha for most
libraries. The process involves exporting MARC records from the old system and importing
them into Koha using Koha's import tools.
Migrating bibliographic data is usually easy; holdings data, however, presents a few
challenges. This stems from the fact that different library systems record holdings data in
different ways—fields and subfields used for an element may be different. In some cases,
certain fields used in Koha may not be directly available in the holdings field.
To import the data into Koha, one has to first convert the source MARC File into a Koha-
compatible file using MARCEdit—a free MARC editor. The converted file is then imported
using one of Koha's imports tools:
• bulkmarckimport.pl: A Linux command-line tool usually used to import large MARC
files
• GUI import tool: A more flexible import tool available in Koha's staff client
(Sirohi & Gupta, 2010)
Evergreen
Evergreen has attracted worldwide interest since its introduction in 2006. 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.
18

19. Figure 6: Pines library search page, gateway to 275 libraries
Source: Georgia Public Library Service, 2010
Evergreen's architecture
As an open source ILS, Evergreen has a very unique system architecture utilizing various
open source projects.
Its server-side services, which have been developed in the computer languages C and Perl,
are handling all kinds of requests including authentication, storage and circulation.
Evergreen's unique message core is called open scalable request framework (OpenSRF) built
on Ejabber, an open source real time instant messaging service. The OpenSRF not only
provides secure message passing and scalable architecture, but a simple application-
programming interface (API) for application developers.
19

20. Extended Perl and C modules for the Apache web server have been designed for the public
interface presentation layer. All requests from the public interface are formed in the
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format and then directed to the proper server service.
XML formatted result data are returned. However, the Apache C modules interpret XML
data into XHTML pages, which modern browsers are able to understand and render them for
users.
In the database layer, Evergreen utilises the powerful open source database management
software, PostgreSQL. The storage service connects to the database, sends search requests to
the database, and receives search results from the database.
The staff client, built on the XML user interface language (XUL), can easily be set up on
Windows and Mac X operating systems and is not limited to Linux.
Also the following features of Evergreen are crucial to the process of localization:
the server side of Evergreen runs on Linux;
Evergreen fully supports Unicode Transformation Format 8 (UTF-8);
Evergreen leverages the Tsearch2 for indexing and searching; and
Evergreen stores records in MARC XML format.
Migrating data to Evergreen
According to Evergreen documentation, migrating data into Evergreen can be one of the
most daunting tasks for an administrator. Advanced ILS Administration experience,
knowledge of Evergreen data structures, as well as knowledge of how to export data from the
current system or access to data export files from the current system is necessary.
However, several tools for importing bibliographic records into Evergreen can be found in
the Evergreen installation folder. (Evergreen Community, 2010)
Apart from their functionalities, other reasons for recommending these two systems are
discussed below.
20

21. Sustainable communities
Koha and Evergreen are considered sustainable communities because they both have
obtained a critical mass of interested developers, contributors, and users.
The Koha community shows great attractiveness and sustainability because of the following:
(1) A good number of companies and business consultants providing worldwide support
for the product. More than 19 companies throughout the world can be identified each
offering software counseling, support, training, accommodation, etc.
(2) A very high degree of integration by adopting two Marc formats (Marc21 and
Unimarc) and system availability in more than 25 languages. There is therefore
potential here to develop the system in a Kenyan language.
(3) The development and renewal of its leadership. There is a different administrator for
each version.
(4) The size of its community of developers and contributors (over 50 people) is spread
across dozens of countries.
The Evergreen community also shows great potential based on its vitality and sustainability:
(1) The rapid growth of its community of developers and contributors.
(2) The high caliber of its developers and contributors. They come from consortia of
public libraries and academic library systems from all over the world.
(3) The high levels of user satisfaction as demonstrated by the annual user survey and
journals publications.
Networking and sharing
Evergreen and Koha were both born out of consortial administration of resources spread
among multiple libraries, and this is reflected in the software’s internal operations by the
number of options and its overall ease of implementation. Shared administration is not
limited to the catalog and applies also to bibliographic records, authority records, categories
of documents, patron records, patron preferences, budgetary funds, etc. It is also possible to
treat all branches as independent, but still share a common catalog.
21

22. For cataloguing and OPAC
Both Koha and Evergreen have effective utilities for Authority control, record import, record
creation and record export, duplicate checking, thesaurus management, search capability,
documentation, web-based visibility and saved search capability.
Possible challenges
 Existing variations in cataloguing practice for the libraries. This includes authority
control and how to reduce variations in the treatment of personal names or subjects.
 Conversion of records to a standardized format will take a bit of time and effort since the
cooperation of those in charge of the libraries will be essential. Additional resources
(time and space) from each participating library will be required for the realization of a
union catalogue in Kenya.
 In the case of a virtual catalogue there is no control on error checking and data
harmonization.
Conclusion
Adapting open source for a union catalogue in Kenya is not impossible. This is made feasible
by the fact that there exist several successful union catalogs in the world. Of importance, is
the agreement between the participating libraries. This is the hurdle that must be overcome
before any progress is realized in this direction. There are libraries in Kenya that have
implemented open source ILS for long enough to provide the necessary expertise or input to
help in the actual implementation. Koha seems to have gained much mileage in Kenya as
observed earlier on. The experiences with it by the different libraries will come in handy
when deciding on which software to adapt for the union catalogue.
Evergreen has blazed a new trail and as a result of its design, its development philosophy,
and developments in information technology, it has spread rapidly and others are in the
process of emulating it. (Molyneux & Rylande 2010). That is for the good, because more
consortial software and more cooperation among members of the open source communities
in the library world will make libraries stronger and give them more choices in available
software to run their libraries.
22

23. References
Chand, P. & Chauhan, S. K. (2008). The union catalogue of academic libraries in India: an
initiative by INFLIBNET. Interlending & Document Supply, 36(3), 142-148.
Chelak, Fereydoon Azadeh, A. M. & Azadeh, F. (2010). The development of union
catalogues in Iran: the need for a web based catalogue. Interlending & Document Supply,
38(2), 118-125.
Evergreen Community, (2011). Evergreen 2.0 Documentation. (Draft Version). Retrieved
Mar. 16, 2011, from http://docs.evergreen-ils.org/2.0/draft/html/index.html
Georgia Public Library Service, (2011). Evergreen Project web site Retrieved from
http://www.open-ils.org/
Kipaan, L. & Rhea, J. N. (2010). An Internet Miniguide compilation to the graduate program
in education (Saint Loius University, Baguio City). Master Thesis, Master in Library &
Information technology
LibLime & the Koha Development Team, (2011). Koha web site Retrieved from
http://www.koha.org/
Liu, G. & Zheng, H. (2011). Access to serials: integrating SFX with Evergreen open source
ILS. Library Hi Tech, 9(1), 137-148.
Molyneux, R. E. & Rylande R, M. (2010). The state of Evergreen: Evergreen at three.
Library Review, 59(9), 667-676.
Müller, T. (2011). How to Choose an Free and Open Source Integrated Library System.
OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, 27(1), 57-78.
Payne, A. & Singh, V. (2010). Open source software use in libraries. Library Review, 59(9),
708-717.
23

24. RSA database management committee, (1999). In Bibliographic Database Standards.
Retrieved Feb. 16, 2011, from
http://www.alliancelibrarysystem.com/RSADocuments/file... Resource Sharing Alliance
of the Alliance Library System
Sirohi, S. & Gupta, A. (2010). Koha 3 Library Management System. New Delhi: Packt.
Walls, I. (2011). Migrating from Innovative Interfaces’ Millennium to Koha: The NYU
Health Sciences Libraries’ experiences. OCLC Systems & Services, 27(1), 51-56.
Yang, S., Hofmann, M. A., & Weeks, M. (2009). Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager: A
comparison of their OPACs. CUS Tenth Annual Users’ conference.
Zico, M. (2009). Developing an Integrated Library System (ILS) using open source (School
of Engineering and Computer Science of BRAC University) Masters Thesis
Zou, Q. & Liu, G. (2009). Chinese localisation of Evergreen: an open source integrated
library system. Program: electronic library and information systems, 43(1), 49-61.
24