OpenBiblio
Open-knowledge reference entry
OpenBiblio is an open source Integrated Library System. The software is popular with small and rural libraries worldwide due to its simplicity, extensive language support, and good documentation.
History
Openbiblio was created in 2002 by Dave Stevens, who was interested in creating an easy-to-use, well-documented, easy-to-install library system. The current maintainer is Hans van der Weij. After 2017, the current version with a variety of options and bugfixes was published on openbiblio.de.
Implementations and usage
Though the system is still under active development, it has already become widely used in small libraries and archives worldwide. Researchers from the National Autonomous University of Mexico have recommended the use of the system in indigenous community libraries in Mexico, particularly because of its support of the Nahuatl language. The National Library of Armenia has recommended the use of OpenBiblio for the country's 900 small (fewer than 40,000 volumes) and rural libraries.
The system has been translated into Spanish by a professor of Castilian, and is used in the primary school system in Chile. In addition, Colombia, Cuba and Venezuela have expressed an interest in this program, according to Werner Westerman of the Chilean Educalibre group.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “OpenBiblio” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through OpenBiblio, Open-knowledge and entry, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Dec 28, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q4922475. 2 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2002 and 2017.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “OpenBiblio”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow OpenBiblio primary sources, OpenBiblio archive and OpenBiblio research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “OpenBiblio”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “OpenBiblio” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.