JISC Standards Catalogue: Digital Repositories Programme

From DigiRepWiki

JISC Standards

Standards For The JISC Digital Repositories Programme

Welcome to the Standards For The JISC Digital Repositories Programme document. This document, which is available in both hardcopy and online formats, provides details of the standards which will be of relevance to projects funded by JISC's Digital Repositories Programme.

Scope Of This Document

This document addresses the technical standards for use by projects to support interoperability. It should be noted that the document does not address:

  • Accessibility and usability issues
  • Applications

About This Document

This standards document provides a brief summary of many of the standards which are relevant to the project development work funded under JISC's development programmes.

What This Document Is Not

It is important to be aware of the following issues:

  • This document does not mandate the standards which should be used.
  • This document does not describe any compliance procedures if recommendations given in the document are not followed.
  • Implementing recommended standards will not guarantee that a project deliverable will be functional or interoperable.

Background

UKOLN, a national centre of expertise based at the University of Bath, has been asked by the JISC to take responsibility for the development and maintenance of advice on the technical standards to be used by projects funded by JISC's development programme.

The approach which has been taken is based on the recommendations of the JISC-funded QA Focus project which was provided by UKOLN and the AHDS. Following discussions with several projects and JISC staff it was acknowledged that the use of open standards can help to support the interoperability of project deliverables which is of particular importance to the JISC environment and the higher and further education communities, in light of the diversity which is encountered within this sector. However, despite the acknowledged importance of open standards, it was also recognised that the selection and use of open standards is not always easy. There is an awareness that not all open standards gain widespread acceptance and that adoption of open standards before they have proven their reliability and gained widespread acceptance can be costly (as has been seen with the experiences of the planned transition to OSI networking protocols through use of Coloured Book software in the 1980s). In addition to such issues, there is also a recognition that use of open standards may not be applicable in all contexts. For example use of open formats in areas such as word processing, spreadsheets and databases may cause problems in interoperability; in such circumstances in may be sensible to continue to make use of proprietary solutions.

A Layered Approach To Use Of Open Standards

In light of this, a layered approach to use of standards has been developed. This approach, whilst encouraging use of open standards to enhance interoperability, will permit alternative approaches if use of open standards can be shown to be too costly or difficult to implement. In such cases there will be a need to demonstrate the case for deviance from best practices.

The layered approach makes use of three layers (which is described more fully in "A Standards Framework For Digital Library Programmes" <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/ichim05/>- a paper presented at the ichim05 conference.

This approach is illustrated below.

The layers are summarised below:

Contextual layer
This reflects the context in which the standards are being used. Large, well-funded organisations may choose to mandate strict use of open standards in order to build large, well-integrated systems which are intended for long term use. For a smaller organisation, perhaps reliant on volunteer effort with uncertain long-term viability, a simpler approach may be more appropriate, perhaps making use of proprietary solutions.
Policy layer
This provides a description (or catalogue) of relevant policies in a range of areas. The areas will include descriptions of standards, the topic of this paper.
Compliance layer
This describes the mechanisms which will be used in order to ensure that development work complies with the requirements defined within the particular context. For large, public funded programmes there could be a formal monitoring process carried out by external auditors. In other contexts, projects may be expected to carry out their own self-assessment. In such cases, the findings could be simply used internally within the project, or, alternatively, significant deviations from best practices could be required to be reported to the funding body.

Application Of This Approach To The Digital Repositories Programme

The layered approach described above is a generic approach which can be applied across JISC's development programmes (and indeed more widely). The application to the Digital Repositories Programme is described below

Contextual layer
The JISC programme manager (and associated bodies and individuals) are responsible for defining the application of the standards for projects funded by the programme and for defining reporting procedures and quality assurance processes.
Policy layer
This document describes the technical standards which may be of relevance to the projects.
Selection layer (note not included in above diagram)
The projects themselves will be responsible for developing and documenting the technical architecture to be used. This will include the selection of relevant standards. The JISC programme manager will advise on areas in which projects can make such decisions for themselves and areas in which decisions need to be ratified (by the programme manager or by other bodies, such as a project advisory group)
Compliance layer
The projects themselves should develop quality assurance procedures which will ensure that their technical (and other) policies are being implemented appropriately. Self assessment may be needed for internal management purposes. In addition the JISC programme manager may require notification of significant deviations from best practices. In addition to such self assessment, the JISC programme manager may chose to require additional reporting or assessment processes.

Example

An example of an implementation of this approach is given below.

This example covers use of standards for a project Web site.

Contextual layer
The JISC programme manager may require that project Web sites should seek to implement appropriate open standards, including HTML and CSS, and require projects to document its decisions and its QA processes and to report on any significant deviations from this policy.
Selection layer
A project may choose HTML 4 (or XHTML 1) and CSS 2.0 and to implement this using a CMS. This decision should be documented - possibly on its Web site so that not only is JISC aware of the decisions, but also the wider community, including potential other stakeholders (e.g. a service which may wish to archive the Web site).
Compliance layer
The project's compliance regime could include systematic validation processes and audit trails to record trends. There may be legitimate deviations from best practices e.g. PowerPoint files converted to HTML may not comply with HTML standards.

-- BrianKelly - 28 Sep 2005

About This Document

This standards document provides a brief summary of many of the standards which are relevant to the project development work funded under JISC's development programmes.

It is important to be aware of the following issues:

  • This document does not mandate the standards which should be used.
  • This document does not describe any compliance procedures if recommendations given in the document are not followed.
  • Implementing recommended standards will not guarantee that a project deliverable will be functional or interoperable.

Document Structure

The document is structured by groupings of related standards e.g. Web formats, image formats, Web Services, etc.

In the longer term it will be able to access the online version of this document in a number of different ways.

-- BrianKelly - 25 Oct 2005

Standards Catalogue

Plain Text

This section covers plain text (as opposed to binary or marked-up text). The relevant standards are StandardASCII and StandardUnicode

ASCII

Standard
ASCII

About the Standard
Most texts described as plain text in the UK (and other mostly Anglophone environments) use US-ASCII. While this is usually an adequate format for sharing documents between computers and applications when the text contains only simple, modern English prose, there are many cases where characters will not display properly when transferred between computers and applications. US-ASCII cannot represent a number of characters, including the pound, euro and trademark symbols, em- and en-dashes and characters such as thorn from early English prose. Accents and non-English characters are entirely lacking.

Version / Maturity
As hinted above there are different versions of ASCII which users exploit according to their region and country. The use of ASCII generally has been ongoing since the 1960s and all text tools will exploit this format.

Risk Assessment
The precise text-encoding standard used needs to be specifically documented to ensure long-term preservation of the resource, (e.g. the ISO-8859 codepage, or UTF-8)

SOA Role

Further Information

  • ASCII, PRONOM, <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/PRONOM/Format/proFormatSearch.asp?status=detailReport&id=434>
  • QA advice on digital text, URL TBC
  • AHDS Preservation Handbook on plain text, TBC

Author
Alastair Dunning, AHDS

Contributors
AD, GK (AHDS Exec), MY, SY (AHDS LLL)

Date Created
20 July 2005

Update History

Unicode

Standard
Unicode

About the Standard
"Unicode provides a unique number for every character, no matter what the platform, no matter what the program, no matter what the language." (http://www.unicode.org/)
 
The aim of Unicode (standardised as the ISO 10646 family) is for all of the characters in all of the world's languages, including some languages of the past, to be mapped unambiguously onto a single numerical code. Unicode is certain to become the standard for character encoding in the future, and is already supported by current versions of Mac, Windows and Linux operating systems, along with Java, XML and MS Word. It already offers mappings for all widely spoken or well studied languages, coverage of less well known languages is growing fast and coverage of non-traditional languages (such as sign languages) is planned. US-ASCII and ISO-8859-1 begin with the same sequence as the default Unicode encoding (called UTF-8), which means that a US-ASCII file is also a UTF-8 file. There are other encodings of Unicode (called UTF-16 and UTF-32), but these are mainly used within programs or where large volumes of large character set language text are being stored. Fortunately most Unicode using applications (and all XML compliant applications) read all of these varieties of Unicode.

Version
Unicode UTF-8 or UTF-16 is recommended.

Maturity
Unicode is now well-established and continues to develop. All but the most rudimentary text tools will have some support for Unicode, but more advanced tools are required to exploit its full functionality.
 
Issues with fonts should also be noted. Because the Unicode character set is very large and new languages are being added in an on-going fashion, many systems do not include a full set of Unicode fonts. Fonts covering portions of the Unicode character set are often included in language packs for various systems. Fonts for some languages may need to be installed manually by the user, especially for less widely used languages. Unlike other areas of Unicode support, this is likely to remain an issue, because the process of including minority, historic and artificial languages in Unicode is on-going.

Risk Assessment
The precise text-encoding standard used needs to be specifically documented to ensure long-term preservation of the resource, (e.g. the ISO-8859 codepage, or UTF-8).

SOA Role

Further Information

  • Unicode Home Page, Unicode.org, <http://www.unicode.org/>
  • Unicode, PRONOM, <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/PRONOM/Format/proFormatSearch.asp?status=detailReport&id=43>
  • Unicode From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode>
  • QA advice on digital text, TBC
  • AHDS Preservation Handbook on plain text, TBC

Author
Alastair Dunning, AHDS

Contributors
AD, GK (AHDS Exec), MY, SY (AHDS LLL)

Date Created
20 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

Markup Text

This section covers mainstream text documents that have structural mark-up inserted into them. It does not cover documents that have presentational mark-up inserted (e.g. HTML).

This section has links to SGML and XML.

SGML

Standard
SGML

About the Standard
SGML (Standardised General Mark-up Language) is a meta-language for describing electronic text. XML (eXtensible Mark-up Language) is a more flexible version of SGML which performs the same task.

Version
XML and SGML require Document Type Definitions (DTD) or an XML Schema to define their use within particular documents. The TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) Guidelines supply one set of guidelines for defining DTDs for electronic texts. However, there are many other DTDs that can be used, and encoders can tailor their own according to the source being digitised

Maturity
SGML is an ISO standard: "ISO 8879:1986 Information processing—Text and office systems—Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML)". SGML has been in use since the 1970s although it tends to be used in specialist areas.

Risk Assessment
SGML is a good open preservation formats. To ensure proper functioning, as with most formats, good documentation is also required to understand the data. This normally takes shape in a DTD which defines the use of SGML for a particular document and an SGML header, which is metadata recording all aspects of the electronic text and its original source. Note that XML can be regarded as a lightweight version of SGML designed for networked application. XML may be more suitable in many application areas.

SOA Role

Further Information
  • ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34, ISO, <http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/sc34oldhome.htm>
  • Overview of SGML Resources, W3C, <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SGML/>
  • SGML, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgml>
  • AHDS Guide to Good Practice, Creating and Documenting Electronic Texts
  • AHDS Preservation Handbook on Marked-up/Encoded Textual Data

Author
Alastair Dunning, AHDS

Contributor
AD, GK (AHDS Exec), Staff at AHDS LLL

Date Created
20 July 2005

Update History

-- AlastairDunning - 20 Jul 2005

XML

Standard
Extensible Markup Language (XML)

About the Standard
The XML (Extensible Markup Language) is a general-purpose markup language for creating special-purpose markup languages which has been developed by W3C.

Version
XML 1.1 is the latest version. Version 1.1 updates XML so that it no longer depends on the specific Unicode version. You are encouraged to create or generate XML 1.0 documents if you do not need the new features in XML 1.1.

Maturity
XML is a stable mature standard which is part of the Web infrastructure and is used as the basis for developing other standards. XML had its origins in SGML and has been developed in order to reduce the complexity found in SGML and to be more suited for use in a networked environment.

Risk Assessment
XML is a core Web standard.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributors

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

Binary Text

This section covers binary file formats including ORG, RTF, DOC and PDF. Binary text documents are often created in applications such as word processors, etc. or as the result of transformation from another format.

ORG

About the Standard
ORG is a non-proprietary file format, based on XML, that derives from word processor documents made in the Open Office suite of software.

Version
The OpenOffice.org file format is changing with version 2 release of OpenOffice. While it will still read and write files created in earlier versions, it is adopting the OASIS OpenDocument XML format as its default native file type. This is very similar to its previous native XML format and both are stored as a compressed zip file which can be uncompressed with any freely available unzip software.

Maturity
The Open Office open source application was launched in 2000. The ORG file format is still being developed.

Risk Assessment
Although an open standard supported by the Open Office open source application, the format is not as widely used as proprietary formats such as the Microsoft DOC format.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Alastair Dunning, AHDS

Contributor
AD, GK (AHDS Exec), Staff at AHDS LLL

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

-- AlastairDunning - 25 Jul 2005

RTF

About the Standard
RTF (Rich Text Format) is a document file format developed by Microsoft since 1987 for cross-platform document interchange.

Version
The current version is RTF 1.8 (April 2004).

Maturity
RTF is widely supported by many word processing applications.

Risk Assessment
RTF is a proprietary format. RTF files may note contain the full functionality provided in the original file format. Formatting may be lost when importing RTF files. RTF files can be large.

SOA Role

Further Information
  • RTF 1.8 Specification, Microsoft, <http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ac57de32-17f0-4b46-9e4e-467ef9bc5540&displaylang=en>
  • RTF, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTF>
  • AHDS Preservation Handbook on Binary Texts

Author
Alastair Dunning, AHDS

Contributor
AD, GK (AHDS Exec), Staff at AHDS LLL

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

-- AlastairDunning - 25 Jul 2005

DOC

About the Standard
DOC is the native format for the commonly-used Microsoft Word software.

Version
The current version of the Microsoft DOC format is Word 7. This is backwards compatible with several older versions of the format.

Maturity
The DOC format is widely used in word processing.

Risk Assessment
Although DOC is a very popular format and can be exceedingly useful in the short term, there are preservation risks associated with this format. DOC is a proprietary format, and users may need a migration strategy for documents in this format - this may not be a feasible task in the long term.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Alastair Dunning, AHDS

Contributor
AD, GK (AHDS Exec), Staff at AHDS LLL

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

-- AlastairDunning - 25 Jul 2005

PDF

About the Standard
PDF (Portable Document Format) was designed by Adobe.

Version
The latest version is 1.6.

Maturity
PDF is a popular and widely used format.

Risk Assessment
PDF is a very popular format and can be very useful in the short term. However, there are preservation risks associated with this format. PDF is a proprietary format and users may need a migration strategy for documents in this format – this may be an unreasonable task in the long term. And while Adobe currently makes the PDF specification open any change to this policy could inhibit access to PDF documents.

SOA Role

Further Information

  • PDF Specification, Adobe, <http://partners.adobe.com/asn/tech/pdf/specifications.jsp>
  • Portable Document Format 1.6, PRONOM, <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/PRONOM/Format/proFormatSearch.asp?status=detailReport&id=637>
  • PDF, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf>
  • AHDS Preservation Handbook on Binary Texts

Author
Alastair Dunning, AHDS

Contributor
AD, GK (AHDS Exec), Staff at AHDS LLL

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

-- AlastairDunning - 25 Jul 2005

Web Formats

Area
This section covers mainstream Web document formats including HTML, XHTML, CSS and DOM.

About the Standards

HTML is the native Web format for the Web. HTML describes the structure of native Web documents. The latest version of HTML is HTML 4. In addition a formulation of XHTML in XML can also be used. The latest version of XHTML is XHTML 1.

HTML/XHTML should be used to describe the structure of native Web document (e.g. headings, paragraphs, lists, links, etc.) The appearance of these elements should be described using CSS.

The DOM (Document Object Model) provides a mechanism for manipulating document objects using scripting languages such as Javascript.

HTML / XHTML

Standard
HTML

About the Standards
HTML is the native Web format for the Web. HTML describes the structure of native Web documents.

Version
At the time of writing (27 July 2005) the recommended versions of HTML are HTML 4 and XHTML 1.

Maturity
HTML is a mature format, with many authoring tools available and a wide understanding of the technologies. (XHTML 1.1 is the latest version and is widely supported.)

Risk Assessment
Historically HTML provided both structural and formatting elements and many tools still support this approach. Use of CSS has, in the past, been hindered by poor support in browsers, although simple techniques are now available for overcoming such barriers. However inertia, investment in legacy authoring tools or a lack of awareness of current best practices may hinder deployment of HTML and CSS with corresponding difficulties in maximising accessibility and interoperability.
 
In addition there is a need to ensure documents using HTML comply with appropriate standards. There will be a need to deploy appropriate QA techniques to ensure that this is the case.
 
Also note that there are some minor issues concerning the MIME type to be used with XHTML 1 resources. In practice, however, there is a widespread, but not universal, view that the same MIME type can be used for both HTML and XHTML 1 resources.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor

Date Created
1 June 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

For information on XHTML see StandardHTML.

CSS

Standard
CSS (Cascading Stylesheets).

About the Standards
CSS Cascading Stylesheets) is the recommended technology for describing the appearance of HTML documents.

Version
At the time of writing (1 June 2005) the recommended version of CSS is CSS 2.

Maturity
CSS is a mature format, with many authoring tools available and a wide understanding of the technology.

Risk Assessment
Historically use of CSS has, in the past, been hindered by poor support in browsers, although simple techniques are now available for overcoming such barriers. However inertia, investment in legacy authoring tools or a lack of awareness of current best practices may hinder deployment of HTML and CSS with corresponding difficulties in maximising accessibility and interoperability. In addition there is a need to ensure documents using CSS comply with appropriate standards. There will be a need to deploy appropriate QA techniques to ensure that this is the case.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributors

Date Created
27 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

DOM

Standard
DOM (Document Object Model)

About the Standard
The DOM (Document Object Model) is a platform- and language-neutral interface for Web resources (such as HTML and XML) that allows programs and scripts to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of documents.

Version
Level 3 of various components of the DOM is the latest version.

Maturity
The DOM is widely used to provide interaction in Web pages.

Risk Assessment
There may be inconsistent support for DOM across various Web browsers and JavaScript implementations. There will be a need for testing across browser environments. Also note that support for the DOM may be disabled if users (or institutions) disable JavaScript support).

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributors

Date Created
22 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 22 Jul 2005

Web Services

The term 'Web Services' is used to refer to a family of standards which provide machine-to-machine interfaces. A summary of some of the key Web Services standards is given below.

This includes SOAP, UDDI and WSDL together with an alternative approach known as REST.

Further Information

SOAP

Standard
SOAP

About the Standard
SOAP (which originally stood for Simple Object Access Protocol) is a standard for exchanging XML-based messages over a network, normally using HTTP. SOAP forms the foundation layer for 'Web Services' providing a basic messaging framework that more abstract layers can build on.

Version
A brief summary of version issues.

Maturity
SOAP is one of the more mature and widely deployed Web Service components.

Risk Assessment
Although SOAP appears to be stable and mature it should be noted that there are alternative approaches such as the REST approach.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor

Date Created
22 July 2005

Update History

UDDI

Standard
UDDI

About the Standard
UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration) is a platform-independent, XML-based registry for businesses worldwide to list themselves on the Internet.

Version
The current version is version 3.

Maturity
Use of UDDI has not taken off to the extent which was originally envisaged.

Risk Assessment
The potential for use of UDDI in areas such as JISC development is not proven.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor

Date Created
22 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

WSDL

Standard
WSDL

About the Standard
WSDL (Web Services Description Language) is an XML format for describing Web services.

Version
The current version is version 1.1 (a draft specification for 2.0 was released in May 2005).

Maturity
???

Risk Assessment
???.

SOA Role
The role of the standard in a Service Oriented Architecture.

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor

Date Created
22 July 2005

Update History
Summary of significant changes to intellectual content.

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

REST

Standard
REST

About the Standard
REST (Representational State Transfer) an architectural style for distributed hypermedia systems like the Web. The term REST is now used in a loose sense to describe any simple Web-based interface that uses XML and HTTP without use of Web Service technologies such as SOAP .

Version
Not applicable.

Maturity
This is a relatively new approach.

Risk Assessment
The REST approach is used in a variety of Web applications such as Amazon, eBay, various Blogs, etc.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributors

Date Created
22 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

DOM

Standard
DOM (Document Object Model)

About the Standard
The DOM (Document Object Model) is a platform- and language-neutral interface for Web resources (such as HTML and XML) that allows programs and scripts to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of documents.

Version
Level 3 of various components of the DOM is the latest version.

Maturity
The DOM is widely used to provide interaction in Web pages.

Risk Assessment
There may be inconsistent support for DOM across various Web browsers and JavaScript implementations. There will be a need for testing across browser environments. Also note that support for the DOM may be disabled if users (or institutions) disable JavaScript support).

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributors

Date Created
22 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 22 Jul 2005

XML Standards

This section describes several of the XML infrastructure standards. The areas covered are XML, XML Namespaces, XML Schemas and XSLT.

XML

Standard
Extensible Markup Language (XML)

About the Standard
The XML (Extensible Markup Language) is a general-purpose markup language for creating special-purpose markup languages which has been developed by W3C.

Version
XML 1.1 is the latest version. Version 1.1 updates XML so that it no longer depends on the specific Unicode version. You are encouraged to create or generate XML 1.0 documents if you do not need the new features in XML 1.1.

Maturity
XML is a stable mature standard which is part of the Web infrastructure and is used as the basis for developing other standards. XML had its origins in SGML and has been developed in order to reduce the complexity found in SGML and to be more suited for use in a networked environment.

Risk Assessment
XML is a core Web standard.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributors

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

XML Namespaces

Standard
XML Namespaces

About the Standard
Namespaces in XML is a W3C recommendation for constructing unique names for elements and attributes in an XML instance. The unique name is a two part construct consisting of an XML Namespace Name and a local part. An XML instance may contain element or attribute names from more than one XML namespace.

Version
  • Namespaces in XML 14 January 1999
  • Namespaces in XML 1.1 4 February 2004. Version 1.1 (i) uses IRIs rather than URIs for XML Namespace Names and (ii) extends the namespace scoping mechanism so that a prefix/namespace name association can be "undeclared".

Maturity
Namespaces in XML is a stable mature standard which is now part of the Web infrastructure and is used as the basis for developing other standards.

Risk Assessment
TBC.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor
Pete Johnston, UKOLN (PeteJohnston)

Date Created
25 July 2005

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

XML Schemas

Standard
XML Schemas

About the Standard
An XML schema is a description of a type of XML document, expressed in terms of constraints on the structure and content of documents of that type, above and beyond the basic syntax constraints imposed by XML itself.

Version
XML Schema was approved as a W3C Recommendation on 2 May 2001.

Maturity
xxx.

Risk Assessment
TBC.

SOA Role

Further Information

  • XML Schema, W3C, <http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema>
  • XML Schema, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_schema>

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor
Pete Johnston, UKOLN (PeteJohnston)

Date Created
27 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

XSLT

Standard
XSLT (XSL Transformations)

About the Standard
XSLT (XSL Transformations) is an XML-based language used for the transformation of XML documents.

Version
XSLT 1.0 is the latest stable version. Version 2.0 is being developed.

Maturity
XSLT is a core part of the XML family of standards.

Risk Assessment
XSLT transformation engines are available for many Web server software applications. It should be noted that XSLT transformations at the client (within a Web browser) can be difficult to implement due to the patchy implementations within Web browsers.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributors

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 20 Oct 2005

Linking Standards

Area
This section covers hyperlinking standards including XLink and XPointer.

XLink

Standard
Xlink

About the Standard
XLink (the XML Linking Language) is an XML markup language used for creating hyperlinks within XML documents.

Version
Version 1.0 is the latest version.

Maturity
The XLink standard is not widely supported.

Risk Assessment
The standard does not appear to be widely supported. Although XLink may have a role to play internally within systems, there may be a risk associated with its use.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor
Names of people who have contributed to the intellectual content of this page.

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

XPointer

Standard
XPointer

About the Standard
XPointer is a system for addressing components of XML documents.

Version
The original XPoint work has been split into three components: XPointer Framework, XPointer element() scheme and XPointer xmlns() scheme. These W3C Recommendations were published in March 2003.

Maturity
There is little implementation experience for the XPointer standard.

Risk Assessment
XPointer is encumbered by a technology patent held by Sun Microsystems. There may be a risk associated with its use.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

Alerting Standards

Area
This section describes standards which can be used for disseminating and managing alerts / news feeds including RSS and OPML.

RSS

Standard
RSS is a widely used standard for news feeds and content syndication.

About the Standard
RSS provides a simple mechanism by which news can be described and made available. RSS alerts can be easily embedded in Web pages, aggregated by RSS aggregation tools, viewed in dedicated RSS readers, etc.

Version
Confusingly the term 'RSS' covers two separate formats. In RSS 1.0 the term standards for RDF Site Summary whereas in 'RSS 2.0' (which is a different, and not later, version to RSS 1.0) RSS standards for Really Simple Syndication.

Maturity
RSS is widely used, is simple to create and is a very powerful technology.

Risk Assessment
The competing approaches and confusion in the terminology can result in an inappropriate version of RSS being used. At present RSS readers can normally process both versions, but this may not be the case in future.

SOA Role
Alerting.

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor

Date Created
1 June 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

OPML

Standard
OPML (Outline Processor Markup Language).

About the Standard
OPML (Outline Processor Markup Language) is a format which can be used for managing groups of RSS feeds.

Version
Not known

Maturity
RSS appears to be the main mechanism used for importing and exporting RSS feeds between RSS readers.

Risk Assessment
OPML was developed by Davey Winer. The format has not been adopted by a formal open standards body. However, in practice, developers of RSS tools appear to have accepted OPML as an industry standard.

SOA Role
Alerting.

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributor

Date Created
21 July 2005

Update History

Standards For Vector Images

This section provides information on vector image formats including SVG and Flash/SWF.

Vector images are different from Raster (photorealistic) images. They are used in design work, Web graphics and Computer Aided Design (CAD). Most people will already have experience of using vector images through the use of drawing tools in e.g. MS Word and PowerPoint.

A vector image is completely scalable and as such does not suffer from issues of loss of quality if rescaled. This is because vector images are made up of individual elements or 'vector objects' that are defined by mathematical instructions which the drawing program will interpret to create the image.

SVG is the vector file format based on XML that has been created as an open standard by the W3C. SWF is the proprietary format owned and used by Macromedia within Flash.

SVG

Standard
SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)

About the Standard
The SVG (Scalable Vector Images) open format was developed by the W3C. It has significant support from industry with Adobe, Apple, Canon, Corel, Hewlett Packard, Macromedia, Microsoft, Kodak and Sun being involved in the development of the standard.

Version
The current version is 1.1.

Maturity
The SVG standard is relatively mature but there has not been widespread takeup within the market place. Browser plug-ins are required to view vector graphics.

Risk Assessment
Older Web browsers have traditionally suffered from poor support for SVG and even support within current browsers is patchy. The proprietary Flash format (also known as SWF) (owned by Macromedia) is more widely deployed.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

Contributors
Karla Youngs and Antony Theobald, TASI

Date Created
28 June 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

Flash/SWF

Standard
Flash / SWF

About the Standard
The Flash file format (which is also known as SWF - Shockwave Flash) is a proprietary format owned by Macromedia.

Version
The current version of Flash is 8.

Maturity
The Flash format is widely deployed and has gained widespread acceptance within the market place. However if resources have been created in a later version e.g. Flash v.8, then they may not be interoperable with older versions of the Flash player. Users will need to download and install the latest version of the Flash player.

Note
The file format should strictly be referred to as SWF. Flash refers to authoring environment, content delivery format and plugin. However in practice the term Flash is used to refer to the SWF format.

Risk Assessment
The proprietary Flash format is widely used to create interactive and multimedia Web resources. Tools to create Flash are readily available. Although a browser plugin is required to view Flash resources, such plugins are widely deployed with many browsers. However Flash is a proprietary format and usage is subject to a licence. It should be noted that the recent takeover of Macromedia by Adobe may lead to some uncertainty in the roadmap for the Flash format. It should also be noted that, as a binary format, there may be some interoperability problems and the use of a single URI for a Flash file can make it difficult to identify a specific portion of a Flash resource for bookmarking, annotation, etc. and older versions of the format have accessibility limitations. The (binary) Flash format may not be particularly interoperable.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

Contributors
Karla Youngs and Antony Theobald, TASI

Date Created
28 June 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

Bitmapped Images

This section covers use of bitmapped images including TIFF.

TIFF

Standard
TIFF (Tagged Image File Format).

About the Standard
The TIFF standard is a de facto standard for high colour depth graphics. Originally created by Aldus company for use with PostScript printing, TIFF is a popular format for high colour depth (32-bit) images, along with JPEG and PNG. Adobe Systems now controls the TIFF specification.

Version
TIFF 6.0 (1992) is the latest version.

Maturity
TIFF is a mature, well-supported standard.

Risk Assessment
Although TIFF is a proprietary format is a widely accepted de facto standard.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

Contributors

Date Created
29 June 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

GIS Standards

Area
Geographic Information.

Standard
ISO geographic information series of standards.

About the Standard
ISO Technical Committee 211 Geographic information/Geomatics is responsible for the ISO geographic information series of standards. There are over 40 separate standards in this series all focused at standardization in the field of digital geographic information. The work aims to establish a structured set of standards for information concerning objects or phenomena that are directly or indirectly associated with a location relative to the Earth.

Version
Various, refer to ISO/TC 211 and ISO for status of standards.

Maturity
Levels of maturity vary depending upon the individual standard. For example the most mature in the series is ISO 6709 – Standard representation of latitude, longitude and altitude for geographic point locations while TS 19139 – Metadata – Implementation Specification is yet to be ratified.

Risk Assessment
The ISO geographic information series of standards addresses a diverse range of functions. The standards specify methods, tools and services for data management, acquiring, processing, analyzing, accessing, presenting and transferring geographic information between different users, systems and locations. Fact sheets for individual standards are available at www.isotc211.org providing general guidance on which sector (system developers, data producers, data users etc) the standard will be of relevance to.

Additional Notes
Following is a list of ISO/TC 211 published standards. A full list of geographic information standards (including those not yet published) can be obtained from ISO/TC 211. ISO 6709:1983 Standard representation of latitude, longitude and altitude for geographic point locations

ISO 19101:2002 Geographic information -- Reference model

ISO/TS 19103:2005 Geographic information -- Conceptual schema language

ISO 19105:2000 Geographic information -- Conformance and testing

ISO 19106:2004 Geographic information -- Profiles

ISO 19107:2003 Geographic information -- Spatial schema

ISO 19108:2002 Geographic information -- Temporal schema

ISO 19109:2005 Geographic information -- Rules for application schema

ISO 19110:2005 Geographic information -- Methodology for feature cataloguing

ISO 19111:2003 Geographic information -- Spatial referencing by coordinates

ISO 19112:2003 Geographic information -- Spatial referencing by geographic identifiers

ISO 19113:2002 Geographic information -- Quality principles

ISO 19114:2003 Geographic information -- Quality evaluation procedures

ISO 19115:2003 Geographic information -- Metadata

ISO 19116:2004 Geographic information -- Positioning services

ISO 19117:2005 Geographic information -- Portrayal

ISO 19119:2005 Geographic information -- Services

ISO/TR 19120:2001 Geographic information -- Functional standards

ISO/TR 19121:2000 Geographic information -- Imagery and gridded data

ISO/TR 19122:2004 Geographic information / Geomatics -- Qualification and certification of personnel

ISO 19125-1:2004 Geographic information -- Simple feature access -- Part 1: Common architecture

ISO 19125-2:2004 Geographic information -- Simple feature access -- Part 2: SQL option

ISO/TS 19127:2005 Geographic information -- Geodetic codes and parameters

SOA Role
Some of the ISO geographic information series of standards relate specifically to making geographic information available as a web service, for example ISO/FDIS 19128 – Web Map server interface.

Further Information
Further information can be found at ISO/TC 211 and ISO.

Author
Anne Robertson, EDINA
Contributor
David Medyckyj-Scott, EDINA

Date Created
05 Aug 2005

Area
Geographic Information.

Standard
ISO 19115 Geographic Information - Metadata.

About the Standard
ISO 19115 defines the schema required for describing geographic information and services. Geographic information are objects or phenomena that are directly or indirectly associated with a location relative to the Earth. ISO 19115 provides information about the identification, the extent, the quality, the spatial and temporal schema, spatial reference, and distribution of geographic data.

Version
Published International Standard as of 8th May 2003.

Maturity
ISO 19115 is immature in terms of any practical integration into business models and production systems. This is due to the inherent complexity of the standard and the still to be ratified ISO 19139 (the XML schema implementation of ISO 19115 required by developers to create applications based upon the ISO 19115 standard).

Risk Assessment
ISO 19115 defines almost 300 metadata elements. They are explicitly defined in order to help users understand exactly what is being described. Individual communities, nations or organizations may develop a community profile of ISO19115. A community profile shall contain the core metadata components, but not necessarily all the other metadata components. Additionally it may contain metadata elements that are not within ISO 19115. Attention should be given to selecting an appropriate profile. Examples of community profiles include: regional profiles such as North America, Europe, Australia; thematic profiles such as meteorological and hydrological profiles and sector-specific profiles such as the UK Government profile known as GEMINI and the UK Higher and Further Education profile known as AGMAP. AGMAP - the Academic Geospatial Metadata Application Profile – has been created to meet the needs of the UK Higher and Further Education community as part of the JISC funded Geo-Data Browser Go-Geo! projects.

Additional Notes
ISO 19115 defines:

  • mandatory and conditional metadata sections, metadata entities, and metadata elements;
  • the minimum set of metadata required to serve the full range of metadata applications (data discovery, determining data fitness for use, data access, data transfer, and use of digital data);
  • optional metadata elements - to allow for a more extensive standard description of geographic data, if required;
  • a method for extending metadata to fit specialized needs.

 
Though ISO 19115 is applicable to digital data, its principles can be extended to many other forms of geographic data such as maps, charts, and textual documents as well as non-geographic data.
 
ISO 19139 Geographic Information – Metadata – XML Schema Implementation as described above is under development.
 
ISO/WD 19115-2 Geographic Information – Metadata – Part 2: Extensions for imagery and gridded data is under development.

 
Up to date details on the status of these standards can be obtained from www.iso.org.

SOA Role
ISO 19115 is designed to provide metadata not only for geographic information and but also for geographic web services.

Further Information

  • Go-Geo!, <http://www.gogeo.ac.uk/>

Author
Anne Robertson, EDINA
Contributor
David Medyckyj-Scott, EDINA

Date Created
05 Aug 2005

Area
Geographic Information.

Standard
Open Geospatial Consortium Specifications.

About the Standard
Geographic information relates to objects or phenomena that are directly or indirectly associated with a location relative to the Earth. The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) has been the most active geospatial standardization body in recent years and has proposed many standards that have been adopted by ISO. The OGC is an international industry consortium consisting of approximately 279 companies, government agencies and universities participating in a consensus process to develop publicly available interface specifications. OGC specifications support interoperable solutions that "geo-enable" the Web, wireless and location-based services, and mainstream IT. There are over 30 OGC specifications consisting of abstract and implementation specifications. Details of all specifications can be found at www.opengeospatial.org.

Version
Current version information for all OGC specifications can be found at www.opengeospatial.org/specs/.

Maturity
An indication of the maturity of each specification can be gathered from the information found at www.opengeospatial.org/specs/. Maturity of all specifications varies, however broadly speaking, the abstract specifications are fairly mature, finalised in the late 1990s with some already translated to ISO standards e.g. OGC Abstract Specification Topic 1, Feature Geometry equates to ISO 19107 Geographic information – Spatial schema. Of the Implementation Specifications, there are a number which the geographic community as a whole are beginning to implement – the Web Map Service, Web Feature Service, Web Coverage Service and Geography Markup Language are well known.

Risk Assessment
OGC specifications are still regarded by many as bleeding edge. There are an increasing number of software products and data providers implementing OGC specifications, however all specifications are still evolving and versions update fairly frequently. The Web Map Service specification is probably the most widely implemented and therefore most stable specification today. OGC recognise the difficulty for software and data providers who wish their products to be compliant to particular specifications, to this end they have established a Compliance and Interoperability Testing and Evaluation Portal where software implementations can be checked against the latest approved specification.

Additional Notes
The standards tracks of OGC and ISO are fully coordinated through shared personnel and through various resolutions of ISO TC211 and OGC. They are often complementary and where they overlap, there is no competition, but common action. Through OGC's cooperative relationship with ISO, many of OGC's Specifications either have become ISO standards or are on track to become ISO standards. OGC work also intersects other Information and Communication Technology systems standards bodies including OASIS, IETF and OMG.

SOA Role
The general trend in geospatial standards development today, and especially within the realms of OGC, is towards the use of open, interoperable, non-discriminatory and demand-driven standards that take into account the needs of users and consumers. Increasingly, these standards have relevance within a service oriented architecture. SOA relevant OGC specifications are broadly grouped into portrayal, data and catalog services. Refer to www.opengeospatial.org for detail on individual specifications.

Further Information

Author
Anne Robertson, EDINA
Contributor
David Medyckyj-Scott, EDINA

Date Created
05 Aug 2005

-- AnneRobertson - 05 Aug 2005

Multimedia Standards

Area
This section covers multimedia formats including SMIL and Flash/SWF.

SMIL

Standard
SMIL (Synchronised Multimedia Interchange Language).

About the Standard
SMIL is an open standard developed by the W3C.

Version
SMIL 2.0 is currently the latest version, although SMIL 2.1 is being finalised (as of July 2005).

Maturity
SMIL 1.0 was released in 1998.

Risk Assessment
SMIL forms part of the W3C family of open standards. Being an XML application it can benefit from ease of integration with other XML standards. However SMIL has not benefitted from wide support from the marketplace where proprietary alternatives such as Flash dominate. Use of SMIL will normally require use of a browser plugin.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly).

Contributors

Date Created
21 July 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

Flash/SWF

Standard
Flash / SWF

About the Standard
The Flash file format (which is also known as SWF - Shockwave Flash) is a proprietary format owned by Macromedia.

Version
The current version of Flash is 8.

Maturity
The Flash format is widely deployed and has gained widespread acceptance within the market place. However if resources have been created in a later version e.g. Flash v.8, then they may not be interoperable with older versions of the Flash player. Users will need to download and install the latest version of the Flash player.

Note
The file format should strictly be referred to as SWF. Flash refers to authoring environment, content delivery format and plugin. However in practice the term Flash is used to refer to the SWF format.

Risk Assessment
The proprietary Flash format is widely used to create interactive and multimedia Web resources. Tools to create Flash are readily available. Although a browser plugin is required to view Flash resources, such plugins are widely deployed with many browsers. However Flash is a proprietary format and usage is subject to a licence. It should be noted that the recent takeover of Macromedia by Adobe may lead to some uncertainty in the roadmap for the Flash format. It should also be noted that, as a binary format, there may be some interoperability problems and the use of a single URI for a Flash file can make it difficult to identify a specific portion of a Flash resource for bookmarking, annotation, etc. and older versions of the format have accessibility limitations. The (binary) Flash format may not be particularly interoperable.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

Contributors
Karla Youngs and Antony Theobald, TASI

Date Created
28 June 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

Audio Standards

This section covers standards for recorded sound including WAV and AIFF.

WAV

Standard
WAVeform *.wav

About the Standard
The proprietary WAV format was developed by Microsoft and IBM. WAV is part of a PC-based set of standards of multimedia formats.

Version
Not known

Risk Assessment
Advantages: WAV is widely used, as it is easy to record and distribute. There are many tools available for editing and playing WAV files, making interchange of files easy. WAV is a lossless format meaning that no audio information is discarded on creation of the file - an important factor for long-term preservation.
 
Disadvantages: WAV is proprietary and comes with the problems associated with proprietary formats. For general use, players are distributed free of charge, but should this policy be changed or Microsoft withdraw of significantly modify the format this will inhibit the long-term preservation of the files.
 
If migration between versions of WAV needs to take place, the success of this will be dependent on the quality of tools supplied by Microsoft or their third-party developers.
 
Another disadvantage is that WAV files tend to be very large. This creates short-term preservation problems for those with limited server space. Other lossless files (used in specialist communities) create smaller file sizes.

SOA Role

Further Information

  • WAVE Audio File Format, Sustainability of Digital Formats, Planning for Library of Congress Collections, <http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000001.shtml>
  • Waveform Audio, PRONOM, <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/PRONOM/Format/proFormatSearch.asp?status=detailReport&id=654>
  • AHDS Preservation Handbook on audio, AHDS, <http://ahds.ac.uk/preservation/ahds-preservation-documents.htm>
  • WAV, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wav>
  • Wave Files, The Sonic Bot, <http://www.sonicspot.com/guide/wavefiles.html>
  • QA advice on digital text, URL TBC

Author
Alastair Dunning, AHDS

Contributors
Gareth Knight, John McHugh, AHDS

Date Created
9 August 2005

Update History

-- AlastairDunning - 9th August 2005

AIFF

Standard
AIFF (Audio Interchange File Format)

About the Standard
AIFF was developed for use on Apple computers.

Version
Not known.

Risk Assessment
Advantages: A well-used lossless format, not quite as well-used as WAV, but still reasonably common. The preference for audio specialists to use the Apple range of computers is a contributing factor in this.
 
Disadvantages: The disadvantages are similar to that of WAV: it creates large files and it not used within some specialist communities.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Alastair Dunning, AHDS

Contributors
Gareth Knight, John McHugh, AHDS

Date Created
9 August 2005

Update History

-- BrianKelly - 19 Oct 2005

Identifiers

Area
This section covers identifiers for digital resources including URI, OpenURL, Z39.88-2004 OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services, DOI and PURL.

URI

Standard
URI

About the Standard
A URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) is a generic name for any of a class of ways of identifying resources on the Internet. It should be noted that a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) is a URI that, in addition to identifying a resource, provides a means of accessing a resource by describing its primary access mechanism or network "location".

Version
NA

Maturity
URIs are an integral part of the Web architecture.

Risk Assessment
All Web sites will make use of URLs. In order to ensure URLs are persistent for a 'reasonable' period, it will be necessary to develop and implement a URL naming policy which will ensure that URLs are persistent over changes in organisational and departmental structures, changes in staffing, changes in technologies and file formats, etc. As well as URLs, other types of URIs may be applicable in certain circumstances, such as PURLs, DOIs, etc. Further information on these forms of identifiers is given elsewhere.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

Contributor
Names of people who have contributed to the intellectual content of this page. (To be used as a contact for this work and in the acknowledgements - but will not be included inline with the standard in the final document).

Date Created
22 July 2005

Update History

OpenURL

Standard
OpenURL

About the Standard
OpenURL is a type of URL that contains resource metadata for use primarily in libraries. NISO, the National Information Standards Organization, has developed OpenURL and its data container (the ContextObject) as an international ANSI standard (Z39.88).

Version
NA

Maturity
TBC

Risk Assessment
TBC

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

Contributor
Names of people who have contributed to the intellectual content of this page.

Date Created
27 July 2005

Update History

Z39.88-2004, The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services

Standard
Z39.88-2004, The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services

About the Standard
NISO standard Z39.88-2004, The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services provides a means of describing a referenced resource along with a description of the context of the reference, known as a ContextObject. Additionally it defines methods of transporting these descriptions between networked systems. It is anticipated that it will be used to request services pertaining to the referenced resource and appropriate for the requester.

 
The OpenURL Framework is very general and has the potential to be used in many application domains and by many communities. Concrete instantiations of the various core components within the framework are defined within the OpenURL Registry.

 
There are currently two formats for ContextObject Representations defined in the OpenURL Framework: Key/Encoded-Value and XML.

Version
Z39.88-2004 is also know as Version 1.0 OpenURL. The earlier 'de facto' standard OpenURL is known as Version 0.1.

Maturity
The standard was agreed by NISO members and endorsed by ANSI in April 2005. The standards body is NISO (http://www.niso.org/)

Risk Assessment
There will be a transition period of indeterminate length while applications upgrade from version 0.1 to 1.0. It is not possible for a source service to know whether a particular resolver has upgraded. Thus it is recommended that source services provide hybrid OpenURLs that contain both version 1.0 and 0.1 keys where these differ, and that resolvers deal gracefully with keys they do not understand.

 
The solution to various issues related to HTTP and security are given in the standard and in the Implementation Guidelines.

SOA Role
Provides a standard, interoperable means of data interchange.

Further Information

Author
Ann Apps, MIMAS, The University of Manchester. (ann.apps@manchester.ac.uk)

Contributor

Date Created
28 July 2005

Update History

DOI

Standard
DOI

About the Standard
A DOI (Digital Object Identifier) is a permanent identifier given to a networked resource so that if its address changes, users will be redirected to its new address. DOIs were conceived by the Association of American Publishers in partnership with the Corporation for National Research Initiatives and is administered by the International DOI Foundation.

Version
N.A.

Maturity
DOIs are widely used within the scholarly publishing sector.

Risk Assessment
Although DOIs are widely used within the scholarly publishing sector and its potential is being evaluated in other areas (e.g. identifiers for scientific resources), the wider applicability of DOIs is still uncertain.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

Contributor

Date Created
22 July 2005

Update History

PURL

Standard
PURL

About the Standard
A PURL is a Persistent Uniform Resource Locator. Functionally, a PURL is a URL. However, instead of pointing directly to the location of an Internet resource, a PURL points to an intermediate resolution service. The PURL resolution service associates the PURL with the actual URL and returns that URL to the client. The client can then complete the URL transaction in the normal fashion (using a standard HTTP redirect).

Version
NA

Maturity
PURLs were originally developed by OCLC in the mid 1990s.

Risk Assessment
TBC.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

Contributor

Date Created
22 July 2005

Update History

Standards For Scripting Languages

Area
This section covers standards for Scripting Languages including JavaScript/ECMAScript.

Javascript

Standard
Javascript/ECMAScript

About the Standard
Javascript (which is also known as ECMAScript) is a popular client-side scripting language used in Web pages.

Version
The latest versions are Standard ECMA-262 ECMAScript Language Specification 3rd edition (December 1999), Standard ECMA-290 ECMAScript Components Specification (June 1999), Standard ECMA-327 ECMAScript 3rd Edition Compact Profile (June 2001) and Standard ECMA-357 ECMAScript for XML (E4X) Specification (June 2004).

Maturity
Javascript/ECMAScript is now relatively mature. However there may be interoperability problems with older Web browsers.

Risk Assessment
Javascript suffered initially for differing implementations across the Netscape and Internet Explorer browsers. The ECMAScript standard was developed to provide a standard implementation which could be used across different platforms. There will still be a need for testing across different platforms.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

Contributor

Date Created
25 July 2005

Update History

HTTP

Area
Web transport protocol

Standard
HTTP.

About the Standard
HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) standard.

Version
HTTP/1.1.

Maturity
HTTP is part of the core Web infrastructure. HTTP/1.1 has been available since 1999.

Risk Assessment
Support for HTTP is provided by all Web servers. It should be noted that a small number of Web application environments may produce invalid HTTP headers, which can cause problems for some user agents.

SOA Role

Further Information

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN (BrianKelly)

Contributors

Date Created
22 July 2005

$ Update History:

-- BrianKelly - 22 Jul 2005

Resource Discovery Metadata

Area
The section covers resource discovery metadata including Dublin Core, SimpleDublin Core, OAI DC, Encoding Bibliographic Citation Information in Dublin Core and The IESR Metadata Schema.

Dublin Core

Standard
Dublin Core

About the Standard
Dublin Core is a metadata standard made up of three distinct components: an abstract model which describes the construction of metadata descriptions; a set of vocabularies that provide terms which are referenced in DC metadata descriptions; a set of binding specifications that describe how DC metadata descriptions may be serialised.

Version
New terms are regularly added to the metadata vocabularies maintained by DCMI, under the control of the DCMI Usage Board.

Maturity
Dublin Core has its origins in workshops held in the mid 1990s.

Risk Assessment
Dublin Core plays a key role in many development areas.

SOA Role
Search, Harvest.

Further Information

Author
PeteJohnston

Contributor

Date Created
04 Oct 2005

Update History
Initial version.

Simple Dublin Core

Standard
Simple Dublin Core

About the Standard
Simple Dublin Core is a Dublin Core Application Profile in which the properties available are the 15 elements of the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set and in which values are represented by value strings. A description set conforming to the Simple Dublin Core DCAP contains only one description; within that description, a property may be referenced in multiple statements or in none; each statement must contain a value string; value URIs and rich representations are not permitted.

Version
The Simple Dublin Core element set are stable.

Maturity
The Simple Dublin Core application profile has been widely deployed, particularly by implementers of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH).

Risk Assessment
The Simple Dublin Core application profile supports the creation of simple metadata descriptions, and is designed primarily to support simple resource discovery functions.

SOA Role
Search, Harvest.

Further Information

Author
PeteJohnston?

Contributor

Date Created
04 Oct 2005

Update History

oai_dc XML Format

Standard
oai_dc XML Format

About the Standard
oai_dc is an XML format for the serialisation of Simple Dublin Core metadata descriptions. The format is defined as a "metadata format" for use within the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). OAI-PMH requires that data providers support the oai_dc metadata format.

Version

Maturity
The oai_dc XML format has been widely deployed by implementers of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH).

Risk Assessment
oai_dc provides a serialisation format for the Simple Dublin Core application profile. That DC application profile supports the creation of simple metadata descriptions, and is designed primarily to support simple resource discovery functions.

SOA Role
Search, Harvest.

Further Information

Author
PeteJohnston

Contributor

Date Created
04 Oct 2005

Update History

Guidelines for Encoding Bibliographic Citation Information in Dublin Core Metadata

Standard
DCMI Recommendation: Guidelines for Encoding Bibliographic Citation Information in Dublin Core Metadata.

About the Standard
The 'Guidelines for Encoding Bibliographic Citation Information in Dublin Core Metadata' focus on bibliographic citations for journal articles, but other genre are considered. The recommendation deals primarily with bibliographic citations for a resource within its own metadata, but some guidelines for describing references to other resources are also indicated. Some other issues that arise when describing a bibliographic resource using Dublin Core are also discussed.

Version
This is the first version of the recommendation.

Maturity
A DCMI Recommendation. Endorsed by standards body DCMI (http://www.dublincore.org/). Part of the recommendation is based on another standard, Z39.88-2004, The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services.

Risk Assessment
It is expected that these guidelines will be useful when the intention is to use Dublin Core metadata to describe bibliographic items for resource discovery or for simple, interoperable resource description. The guidelines do not aim to provide a solution for more complex metadata description requirements, and they do not seek to replace metadata schemes more suitable in such cases. Detailed guidelines for the XML encoding of bibliographic information in Dublin Core are not included. Guidelines for XML encoding will be published in a separate, future document when updated DC-in-XML guidelines consistent with the DCMI Abstract Model become available.

SOA Role
Provides interoperability with consistent metadata description.

Further Information
  • Recommendation, DCMI Citation Working Group, <http://www.dublincore.org/groups/citation/>

Author
Ann Apps, MIMAS, The University of Manchester. (ann.apps@manchester.ac.uk)

Contributor

Date Created
28 July 2005

Update History

IESR Metadata Schema

Standard
JISC Information Environment Service Registry (IESR) metadata schema for Collections, Services and Agents.

About the Standard
Within the JISC Information Environment Service Registry (IESR) collections of resources, the technical services that provide access to them and the agents that own collections or administer services are described according to the IESR Application Profile.

Version
The current version is 2.5. A new version will be produced following a metadata review now in progress (summer 2005).

Maturity
This is not a formal standard, but must be used for describing resources in IESR. The Collection description is an extension of the DCMI Collection Description schema (under development) which will also be endorsed by the NISO Metasearch Initiative, and was derived from the RSLP Collection Description Schema. The Service and Agent descriptions are bespoke but use many Dublin Core properties. Connection details for Services use and appropriate standard such as ZeeRex or WSDL.

Risk Assessment
IESR is still a development project. The metadata schema is therefore not yet stable.

SOA Role
IESR is a registry of services, thus central to SOA.

Further Information

Author
Ann Apps, MIMAS, The University of Manchester (ann.apps@manchester.ac.uk)

Contributor

Date Created
28 July 2005

Update History

-- AnnApps - 28 Jul 2005

Note: Included topic ContextOtherMetadataStandards does not exist yet

Search Protocols

Area
The section covers standards for distributed searching including Z39.50, Bath Profile, SRW, SRU.

Z39.50

Standard
Z39.50.

About the Standard
The Z39.50 standard defines a client/server based service and protocol for Information Retrieval. It specifies procedures and formats for a client to search a database provided by a server, retrieve database records, and perform related information retrieval functions. The protocol addresses communication between information retrieval applications at the client and server; it does not address interaction between the client and the end-user.

Version
Z39.50-1995 specifies versions 2 and 3 for the Z39.50 service and protocol. Z39.50-2003 also specifies versions 2 and 3, and additionally, incorporates many clarifications, amendments, defect corrections, and implementer agreements, all of which have been endorsed by the Z39.50 Implementers Group.

Maturity
Z39.50-2003 is an ANSI/NISO Standard.

Risk Assessment

SOA Role
Search

Further Information

Author
PeteJohnston

Contributor

Date Created
04 Oct 2005

Update History

Bath Profile

Standard
Bath Profile

About the Standard
The Bath Profile is an international registered Z39.50 profile supporting library applications and resource discovery. It describes and specifies a subset of ANSI/NISO Z39.50-1995 standard.

The Profile identifies those features of the Z39.50 standard that are required to support effective search and retrieval among library catalogues, union catalogues, and other electronic resources worldwide. The Profile also describes and specifies a subset to allow basic cross-domain search and retrieval of networked resources including library catalogues, government information, museum systems, and archives.

Version
Release 1.1 of the profile defines both a core set of basic author, title and subject search and retrieval specifications across a variety of library databases, and a set of more complex searches. Release 2.0 adds additional functionality by including specifications for the retrieval of holdings information from a local OPAC or union catalogue and the specifications for authority record search and retrieval.

Maturity
The Bath Profile Version 2.0 is Internationally Registered Profile of Z39.50.

Risk Assessment

SOA Role
Search

Further Information
  • The Bath Profile, Library and Archives Canada, <http://www.collectionscanada.ca/bath/>

Author
PeteJohnston

Contributor

Date Created
04 Oct 2005

Update History

Search and Retrieve Web Service (SRW)

Standard
Search and Retrieve Web Service (SRW)

About the Standard
Search and Retrieve Web Service (SRW) is a Web Services-based protocol for querying databases and returning search results. Client requests and server responses are encapsulated as SOAP messages.

Version
The current version of SRW is 1.1; version 1.0 was an experimental version, and has been officially deprecated.

Maturity

Risk Assessment

SOA Role
Search

Further Information

Author
PeteJohnston

Contributor

Date Created
04 Oct 2005

Update History

Search and Retrieve URL Service (SRU)

Standard
Search and Retrieve URL Service (SRU)

About the Standard
Search and Retrieve URL Service (SRU) is a REST-based protocol for querying databases and returning search results. Client requests are encoded as name/value pairs in the query string of a URL and transmitted via HTTP GET requests. The results of SRU requests are XML documents.

Version
The current version of SRU is 1.1; version 1.0 was an experimental version and has been officially deprecated.

$ Maturity:

Risk Assessment

SOA Role
Search

Further Information

Author
PeteJohnston

Contributor

Date Created
04 Oct 2005

Update History

Harvesting Protocols

Area
The section covers metadata harvesting standards including OAI-PMH,

Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)

Standard
Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)

About the Standard
The OAI-PMH specification standard defines a protocol by which one service (harvester) can gather or "harvest" metadata records from a second service (repository). Requests are sent in the form of HTTP GET or POST requests, and responses are returned as XML documents.

Version
The current version of OAI-PMH is version 2.0. Versions 1.0 and 1.1 were experimental versions.

Maturity
OAI-PMH is a specification of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI).

Risk Assessment
OAI-PMH has played a significant role in JISC development programmes, such as the FAIR programme.

SOA Role
Harvest

Further Information

Author
PeteJohnston

Contributor

Date Created
04 Oct 2005

Update History

e-learning

Area
e-learning

Standard
IMS Learning Design is a specification used to describe learning scenarios.

About the Standard
IMS Learning Design does not define individual pedagogical models; instead it provides a high level language, or meta-model, that can describe many different models. The language describes how people perform activities using resources (including materials and services), and how these three things are coordinated into a learning flow.

Version
There is only one version of IMS Learning Design:1.0. There are, however, three implementation levels, from the relative simplicity of level A, via level B to the complexity of C.

Maturity
The conceptual basis of the specification is very mature. The predecessor of IMS Learning Design, Educational Modelling Language (EML) dates from the mid nineties, and both specifications have been subject to a large amount of scrutiny by pedagogic experts. In terms of implementation, however, the first IMS Learning Design tools date from about 2004, and have achieved only partial production quality at the moment of writing. The disjunct between conceptual and implementation maturity is largely down to the complex nature of workflow management.

Risk Assessment
At the moment of writing, two aspects could be a risk: the availability of user interfaces for Learning Design players and editors that are sufficiently friendly for the intended audience. This is necessarily tied to the fact that the specification introduces a relatively new method of teaching. Another aspect that may present a risk is the maturity of some of the services that a IMS Learning Design orchestrates- the interface between these and a central IMS Learning Design reader is still in the early stages of development. This means that learning designs can be location or system dependent.

SOA Role
Learning Design is an important specification in the Activity Management, Activity Authoring and Learning Flow services of the learning domain of the eFramework.

Further Information

Author
Wilbert Kraan.

Contributors
Ann Jeffery, Sarah Currier.

Date Created
30 September 2005

Update History

-- WilbertKraan - 01 Oct 2005

Learning Content Aggregation

Area
Learning Content Aggregation

Standard
IMS Content Packaging is a specification for sending learning resources (or learning objects) from one program to another, facilitating easier delivery, reuse and sharing of materials.

About the Standard
IMS Packages enable you to export content from one virtual learning environment (VLE), content management system or digital repository, and import it into another while retaining information describing the media in the IMS Package, and how it is structured, such as a table of contents or the HTML page to show first.

Version
At the time of writing (Oct 2005), the current version is IMS Content Packaging 1.1.4. The 1.1.3 version is in wide use, also because it is cited by the current version of a widely used profile of the IMS Content Packaging specification: SCORM 2004. Within the 1.1.x range, there are very few differences in information model or binding. Version of IMS Content Packaging older than 1.1 are comparatively rare. At the moment, work on a 1.2 version is under way. The IMS working group aims to maintain as much backward compatibility as possible.

Maturity
The 1.1.x line of IMS Content Packaging is probably among the most widely used and mature e-learning specifications. It is an integral part of an extensive infrastructure that spans several countries and sectors.

Risk Assessment
The IMS Content Packaging specification has been slated for formal standardisation for some time. This has not happened yet, and there are some obstacles to be overcome before it will be possible. There is an outside chance that it either will not happen, or a different version will end up as a formal standard.

SOA Role
The IMS Content Packaging specification plays a role in the Packaging service in the common services of the eFramework. No packaging service definition exists as yet, but that may be developed soon.

Further Information

Author
Wilbert Kraan.

Contributors
Scott Wilson and Sarah Currier.

Date Created
Date page created -- 30 September 2005

Update History

-- WilbertKraan - 01 Oct 2005

e-administration and e-learning domains, person, group and membership information

Area
e-administration and e-learning domains, person, group and membership information

Standard
IMS Enterprise is a specification for transferring data about people and groups (for example, students on a course) between systems such as Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), Portals, Student Record Systems (SRSs), and Management Information Systems (MISs).

About the Standard
The Enterprise specification has been used by a number of institutions in the UK to populatie learning delivery applications such as VLEs with lists of students and groups from an institution’s records, usually held in a student record system or MIS. Enterprise can also be used for returning results from courses delivered by a VLE back to the SRS or MIS. IMS Enterprise Services is a Web Service enabled version of broadly the same specification.

Version
The current IMS Enterprise v1.1 Final specification, released July 2002, is fully backwards compatible with the V1.01 specifications. There is a much more recent webservice specification, IMS Enterprise Services, that makes use of an evolved version of the same datamodel.

Maturity
The specification has been in production use in the JISC community for three to four years. Enterprise Services has also been deployed in a couple of UK institutions on a variety of platforms.

Risk Assessment
From the deployment experience in the community, we know that the lack of semantic specificity of the spec can lead to unexpected results. On the other hand, it means that the spec can be adapted to a very wide variety of contexts. The Enterprise Services specification needs some consideration of the level of operation granularity for specific contexts.

SOA Role
The IMS Enterprise Services specification is a preferred service definition in the Person, Group and Member common services of the eFramework.

Further Information

Author
Wilbert Kraan

Contributor
Scott Wilson

Date Created
1 October 2005

Update History

-- WilbertKraan - 01 Oct 2005

E-learning, Learner Information Profiles

Area
E-learning, Learner Information Profiles

Standard
The IMS Learner Information Package (LIP) is a specification for a standard means of recording information about learners.

About the Standard
IMS LIP is designed to allow information about learners, including their progress to date and awards received, to be transferred between different software applications.

Version
Version 1.0 was conceived some time ago for DTDs, with a very early XSD thrown in. Use of that XSD is not recommended, the 1.01 version of the XSD should be used instead. IMS has also made the ePortfolio specification, which is intended to support ePortfolios and lifelong learning in a wider sense.

Maturity
The standard is relatively old, but implementation has been comparatively sparse. The properties and concepts behind the spec are very well known, however, and have been re-used in the more recent ePortfolio specification.

Risk Assessment
IMS LIP's main risk is in the system application: for database driven enterprise systems, it is well suited. For lighter, web-born systems, the specification may well be too complex.

SOA Role
IMS LIP plays an important part in the ePortfolio learning domain service of the eFramework.

$ Further Information:

Author
Wilbert Kraan

Contributors
Scott Wilson, Peter Rees Jones

Date Created
1 October 2005

Update History

-- WilbertKraan - 01 Oct 2005

E-learning, Assessment

Area
E-learning, Assessment

Standard
IMS Question and Test Interoperability (QTI) is a specification for a standard way of sharing assessment data.

About the Standard
IMS QTI is designed to make it easier to transfer information such as questions, tests and results between different software applications.

Version
At the time of writing, version 1.2 is still likely to be the most widely used. A version 2.0 has been out for nearly a year and includes a new information model that re-uses more of XHTML, and allows greater control over rendering among other worthwhile improvements. Work is under way to address other parts of QTI 1.0, such as test scoring and reporting.

Maturity
QTI v.1.x is a very widely used and well understood specification. Version 2.0 incorporates a lot of ideas that have been experimented with or thought about for a while in the community, so should reach wider deployment fairly soon.

Risk Assessment
With older versions of QTI, the main question has always been which profile of the spec different tools supported. There was considerable, but not uniform overlap. Version 2.0 has a uniform method of dealing with profiles classification and matching.

SOA Role
IMS QTI plays an important part in the Assessment learning domain service of the eFramework.

Further Information

Author
Wilbert Kraan

Contributors
Niall Sclater and Rowin Young

Date Created
1 October 2005

Update History

-- WilbertKraan - 01 Oct 2005

E-learning, learning activity sequencing

Area
E-learning, learning activity sequencing

Standard
IMS Simple Sequencing (IMS SS) is a specification used to describe paths through a collection of learning activities.

About the Standard
IMS SS declares the relative order in which electronic learning activities are to be presented to a learner and the conditions under which a resource is selected, delivered, or skipped during presentation. IMS SS is labelled as simple because the specification considers only a limited number of common sequencing strategies, not because the specification itself is simple.

Version
There is only one public version of the IMS Simple Sequencing specification: 1.0. The version used in the widely used ADL SCORM 2004 profile, though, is mildly different.

Maturity
IMS Simple Sequencing's complexity has taken some time to gain full maturity. At the time of writing, however, it appears to have attained in a growing number of complete implementations.

Risk Assessment
The authoring of a Simple Sequencing activity can require some special training for instructional designers or educators. Various organisations have made courses or course materials to aid in that development, however.

SOA Role
IMS Simple Sequencing has a place in both the Learning Flow and Sequencing learning domain services in the eFramework.

Further Information

Author
Wilbert Kraan

Contributor
Warwick Bailey

Date Created
1 October 2005

Update History

-- WilbertKraan - 01 Oct 2005

E-learning, learning content, content sequencing and learner tracking

Area
E-learning, learning content, content sequencing and learner tracking

Standard
ADL SCORM is an acronym for Shareable Content Object Reference Model.

About the Standard
The ADL SCORM reference model uses existing specifications to standardize the interface between web based content and web based learning technology systems such as learning management systems (LMSs), also known as virtual learning environments (VLEs). The SCORM is not in itself a specification or standard. Instead, it profiles a number of IEEE and IMS standards and specifications, including the IEEE LOM and IMS Content Packaging.

Version
By far the most widely used version of the SCORM is 1.2. The current version - SCORM 2004, second edition - is for the most part very similar or identical, but for a few version changes in the constituent standards. It does, however, add IMS Simple Sequencing, which can have implementation consequences.

Maturity
SCORM 1.2 is a very widely used and deployed specification. SCORM 2004 is well under way, and has technical maturity.

Risk Assessment
Most risks with SCORM are limited to the degree of fit of the model's assumptions to a project's intended use. Backing by the US federal government and large parts of the training sector make the risk of a lack of sustainability low.

SOA Role
ADL SCORM has a place in the Tracking learning domain service in the eFramework.

Further Information

Author
Wilbert Kraan

Contributor
Warwick Bailey

Date Created
1 October 2005

Update History

-- WilbertKraan - 01 Oct 2005

User Preferences, Accessibility

Area
User Preferences, Accessibility

Standard
The IMS AccLIP Specification provides a means of describing preferences so that learners can interact with an e-learning system regardless of disability, hardware or environment.

About the Standard
The preferences IMS AccLIP Specification supports are based on those parts of a computer system (hardware and software) that can be adjusted to improve accessibility, rather than on type of disability. It concentrates on the display, control and selection of learning content, so that learners with alternative content or interface requirements can be supported.

Version
There is only one version: 1.0.

Maturity
Some large scale implementations mean that the properties of the specification are well understood.

Risk Assessment
For maximal effectivity, a whole infrastructure ought to rely on AccLIP as a means of adjusting user interfaces. While that situation is not assured, the use of the format in one or a few applications is already very useful, and relatively risk free.

SOA Role
IMS AccLIP is an important part of the User Preferences common service of the eFramework.

Further Information

Author
Wilbert Kraan

Contributor
Sharon Perry

Date Created
1 October 2005

Update History

-- WilbertKraan - 01 Oct 2005

e-learning, metadata

Area
e-learning, metadata

Standard
The IEEE 1484.12.1 – 2002 Standard for Learning Object Metadata is an internationally recognised open standard (published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association) for the description of “learning objects”.

About the Standard
IEEE 1484.12.1 is the first part of a multipart standard, and describes the LOM data model. The LOM data model specifies which aspects of a learning object should be described and what vocabularies may be used for these descriptions; it also defines how this data model can be amended by additions or constraints. Other parts of the standard are being drafted to define bindings of the LOM data model, i.e. define how LOM records should be represented in XML and RDF (IEEE 1484.12.3 and IEEE 1484.12.4 respectively).

Version
There is only one version of the LOM as an IEEE standard: 1.0. The IEEE version was partially developed out of the IMS Meta-Data specification, which can be seen as a binding profile of the LOM. Of the IMS versions of the binding, the latest maintenance release (1.2.4) is both backward compatible, and much better than earlier efforts.

Maturity
The LOM is mature and very well documented.

Risk Assessment
When used for its intended purpose -learning objects- the LOM is low risk. Some care needs to be taken with the bindings, however: earlier IMS versions have problems, and the official IEEE XML binding is more a meta schema than a validation tool.

SOA Role
IEEE LOM is a part of the Metadata Management and Metadata Schema Registry common services of the eFramework.

Further Information

Author
Wilbert Kraan

Contributor
Phil Barker

Date Created
1 October 2005

Update History

-- WilbertKraan - 01 Oct 2005

Support

Support Infrastructure

The Standards Catalogue is designed to provide brief, focussed information on standards which are relevant to JISC's development programmes. Apart from a risk assessment section, the catalogue does not provide advice on implementation architectures, decision making processes, etc.

Advice and support has been provided elsewhere. The following links may be useful to those involved in JISC-funded digital development work.

QA Focus
The JISC-funded QA Focus project, provided by UKOLN and AHDS, developed a wide range of briefing documents which give brief, focussed advice on various aspects of development work. See <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/documents/briefings/>.

Netskills
Netskills, a training organisation based in Newcastle which is partly funded by the JISC, provide a variety of training courses related to the development of networked services. For further information see <http://www.netskills.ac.uk/>.

TASI
TASI, a JISC-funded advisory service based in Bristol, provide advice related to creation of and use of digital images. For further information see <http://www.tasi.ac.uk/>.

Support Provided Within The Standards Catalogue

A limited amount of support is provided within the standards catalogue itself. The format of this support is as follows:

  • Catalogue entries contain a section entitled Risk Assessment. This allows the authors of the sections to flag potential areas of significance in which there may be difficulties in deploying the standards.

  • Catalogue entries contain a section entitled Further Information. This contains links to resources providing further information about the standard. This may include links to the standard itself and links to information about the standard. In many cases links are provided to entries held in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has been chosen as this community-developed encyclopedia has the potential to be kept up-to-date with the involvement of a globally-wide community. However there is a need to treat entries in Wikipedia with care as the content does not undergo a formal reviewing process.

Author
Brian Kelly, UKOLN

-- BrianKelly - 03 Oct 2005

-- BrianKelly - 28 Sep 2005

Feedback On The JISC Standards Catalogue

Feedback

This document describes the approach taken to the use of open standards with in JISC development programmes and details of standards which are of particular relevance to JISC's Digital Repositories programme.

The Digital Repositories programme is the first programme which will make use of the new approach to standards. It is therefore important that we receive feedback from those involved in this programme on the approach we have taken and the resources which have been developed.

The following Feedback form has been developed. We welcome feedback from those involved in JISC's Digital Repositories programme.

Feedback Form

Feedback Form

You can help to improve the standards catalogue by providing feedback.

About You

Your name (optional):

Contact details (optional):

Name of your project:

General Comments

Please provide any general comments on the standards catalogue and accompanying advice.

Specific Comments

If you have any specific comments about any of the details given in the standards catalogue please list them.

Retrieved from "/repositories/digirep/index/JISC_Standards_Catalogue:_Digital_Repositories_Programme"