how far have we come? from elib to nof-digi and beyond

A centre of expertise in digital information management

www.ukoln.ac.uk

How Far Have We Come? From eLib to NOF-digi and BeyondBrian KellyUKOLNUniversity of BathBath, UK

UKOLN is supported by:This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)

Acceptable Use PolicyRecording of this talk, taking photos, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised.

Acceptable Use PolicyRecording of this talk, taking photos, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised.

Resources bookmarked using ‘cilips09' tag Resources bookmarked using ‘cilips09' tag

Email:[email protected]

Twitter:http://twitter.com/briankelly/

Blog:http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cultural-heritage/events/cilip-scotland-2009/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cultural-heritage/events/cilip-scotland-2009/


www.ukoln.ac.uk

2

Contents

Introduction• About me• About this talk

The National Programmes (provider’s perspective)• The technical standards• The support infrastructure

What We Learnt• What succeeded, what failed and what we

discovered along the way

What Should We Do In The Future• What do we do next?

Intr

od

uct

ion


www.ukoln.ac.uk

3

About This Talk

Talk is based on experiences of national programmes:• eLib• NOF-digi• DNER/IE• Michael

Common characteristics:• Interoperability through open standards• Managed view of roadmap

Issues:• Did we get it right?• Are there alternative approaches?

Intr

od

uct

ion


www.ukoln.ac.uk

4

The eLib ProgrammeeLib Programme:

• Response to the Follet review, 1993

• Initial budget of £15m over 3 years

• 60+ projects fundedAreas covered:

• Document Delivery • Access To Network

Resources • Training & Awareness • Electronic Journals • Digitisation / Images • Electronic Short Loan

Collections • On Demand

Publishing • Pre-Prints and Grey

Literature • Supporting Studies


www.ukoln.ac.uk

5

eLib Standards GuidelineseLib Standards Guidelines:

• Provides recommendations for selection & use of standards

• Strongly encouraged where relevant

Covered: • Data

communications• Data interchange• Metadata• Search & retrieve• Security,

authentication & payment services


www.ukoln.ac.uk

6

eLib Standards

Things we don’t care about (?):

• Email (SMTP, not X.400), …

Areas we correctly hedged our bets:

• GIF is OK, keep eye on PNG

Areas we were evasive about:

• PostScript & PDF

Areas we got wrong:

• “It is anticipated that SGML will be a key standard ... Projects are encouraged to .. agree or, where necessary, develop document type definitions”

• “projects should … supply a URL for public services, and be prepared to adopt URNs when they are stabilised”

Standards which seem to have disappeared:

• CGM

Editors: Chris Rusbridge Lorcan Dempsey,& Ann Mumford (myself as a contributor)

Editors: Chris Rusbridge Lorcan Dempsey,& Ann Mumford (myself as a contributor)


www.ukoln.ac.uk

7

eLib Standards version 2

eLib Standards version 2• Published in 1998 (2 years after v 1)• Introduced a template for descriptions

Relevant standards:

Comments:

Consensus:• Templates on recommended standards

complemented by technical summaries – and speculation e.g.

“HTTP-NG should support more secure authentication and encryption”


www.ukoln.ac.uk

8

Beyond The StandardsCross-Searching: The Vision

• whois++ lightweight distributed cross-searching protocol

• ROADS: Open source software used by most eLib subject gateways (e.g. SOSIG)

• Z39.50: More heavy-weight solution used in library context

• eLib SBIGs/RDN: implementation in a distributed environment (with departmental providers)

Cross-Searching: Today’s Reality• Intute: Centralised database, distributed data

collection. Cross-searching interfaces, but how widely used?

Note dangers of using standards outside of DL programmes – JISC Web site upgrade mandated Z39.50 support


www.ukoln.ac.uk

9

Later, in NOF-digitise

NOF-Digitise programme:• Ran from August 1999 to December 2004• £50 million funding to put information that supports

lifelong learning into digitised form.• Brought together wide range of partnerships &

organisations

NOF Technical Advisory Service (NOF TAS) provided:• Informed support and advocacy of Technical

Standards and Guidelines• Assistance in achieving standards compliance • Detailed and project-specific advice• Repository of standard and generic advice

Provide by UKOLN and AHDS


www.ukoln.ac.uk

10

Development CultureDifferent culture to HE digital library development community:

• Tell us the standards which we must mandate• Caused problems:

“NOF-digi project Web sites must have 24x7 availability” – very expensive! Requirement was availability at weekends!

Recommended standards weren’t mature (e.g. SMIL) whereas proprietary solutions (Flash) provided compelling user services

• Providing pragmatic solutions: “NOF-digi project Web sites should seek to maximise

their uptime” Quarterly reporting template provided a get-out clause:

“You must (a) describe the areas in which compliance will not be achieved; (b) explain why compliance will not be achieved (including research on appropriate open standards); (c) describe your migration strategies to ensure compliance in the future and (d) how the migration may be funded”


www.ukoln.ac.uk

11

Minerva Experience

Minerva technical guidelines:

• EU-funded• Built on

eLib/NOF/JISC IE resources

• Initially edited by UKOLN

Continued to promote plausible:

• Standards• Best practices

which failed to take off


www.ukoln.ac.uk

12

Compliance Issues

What does must mean?• You must comply with HTML standards

What if I don't? What if nobody does? What if I use PDF?

• You must clear rights on all resources you digitise

• You must provide properly audited accounts

What if I don't?

There is a need to clarify the meaning of must and for an understandable, realistic and reasonable compliance regime

There is a need to clarify the meaning of must and for an understandable, realistic and reasonable compliance regime

JISC 5/99 programme ~80% of project home pages were not HTML compliant

JISC 5/99 programme ~80% of project home pages were not HTML compliant


www.ukoln.ac.uk

13

QA Focus QA Focus:

• JISC-funded project provided by UKOLN and (initially) TASI, then AHDS from 2002-2004

• What QA regime should JISC provide for its development programmes? What actions should be taken if standards not conformed with?

• Recommendations: Self-assessment, not external validation (projects

explained complexities of standards-compliance) Build on culture of sharing and openness Have a pragmatic view of ‘open standards’ Understand complexities of non-conformance / ‘failure’:

The standard failed, not the project The standard may be too expensive to deploy Alternatives may become available


www.ukoln.ac.uk

14

Why Open Standards?

JISC's development programmes:• Traditionally based on use of open standards to:

Support interoperabilityMaximise accessibilityAvoid vendor lock-inProvide architectural integrityHelp ensure long-term preservation

But (thinking the unthinkable):• Do open standards deliver?• What happens if open standards fail?• What is an open standard?• Is the only alternative to open standards use of

proprietary solutions?


www.ukoln.ac.uk

15

… But Don't Always Work There's a need for flexibility:

• Learning the lesson from OSI networking protocols

Today:• Is the Web (for example) becoming over-complex

"Web service considered harmful" The lowercase semantic web / Microformats

• Lighter-weight alternatives being developed• Responses from the commercial world

Other key issues• What is an open standard?• What are the resource implications of using them?• Sometimes proprietary solutions work (and users

like them). Is it politically incorrect to mention this!?

Other key issues• What is an open standard?• What are the resource implications of using them?• Sometimes proprietary solutions work (and users

like them). Is it politically incorrect to mention this!?


www.ukoln.ac.uk

16

What is An Open Standard?Which of the following are open standards today (and were open standards in 2006)?

• XHTML 1 PDF Flash• Java MS Word RSS (1.0/2.0)

UKOLN's "What Are Open Standards?" briefing paper refers to characteristics of open standards:

• Neutral organisation which 'owns' standard & responsible for roadmap

• Open involvement in standards-making process• Access to standard freely available• …

Note these characteristics do not apply equally to all standards bodies e.g. costs of BSI standards; W3C membership requirements; …

Note these characteristics do not apply equally to all standards bodies e.g. costs of BSI standards; W3C membership requirements; …


www.ukoln.ac.uk

17

Is RSS An Open Standard? Is RSS an open standard ("are RSSs open standards")?

RSS 1.0 (RDF Site Summary)• XML application using RDF model• Developed by Aaron Schwarz

RSS 2.0 (Really Simple Syndication)• XML application using simpler model• Developed by Davey Winer

Note that RSS is a widely used and popular application; with usage growing through its role in podcasts

Issues:• Are these open standards?• Are they reliable and robust enough to build

mission-critical services on?• Is there a clear roadmap for the future?

Issues:• Are these open standards?• Are they reliable and robust enough to build

mission-critical services on?• Is there a clear roadmap for the future?

RS

S E

xam

ple


www.ukoln.ac.uk

18

RSS – Governance IssuesGovernance Issues:

• RSS 1.0 spec maintained by Aaron Schwartz:"Aaron Swartz is a teenage writer, hacker, and activist. He was a finalist for the ArsDigita Prize for excellence in building non-commercial web sites at the age of 13. At 14 he co-authored the RSS 1.0 specification, now used by thousands of sites to notify their readers of updates."

• RSS 2.0 specification developed by Dave Winer:"Winer is known as one of the more polarizing figures in the blogging community. … However .. there are many people and organizations who seem unable to maintain a good working relationship with Dave."

RS

S E

xam

ple


www.ukoln.ac.uk

19

RSS – Summary To summarise :

• We thought RSS was a great lightweight syndication technology

• It was – but competing alternatives were developed

• No clear winner (RSS 1.0's extensibility & W3C's support versus RSS 2.0's simplicity and take-up in podcasting, iTunes, etc)

Conclusions• Life can be complex, even with simple standards• Technical merit is never enough – market acceptance can

change things• RSS can still be useful, and interoperability can be provided by

RSS libraries supporting multiple formats• Need for a more sophisticated approach such as model in

“A Contextual Framework For Standards”, WWW 2006

Conclusions• Life can be complex, even with simple standards• Technical merit is never enough – market acceptance can

change things• RSS can still be useful, and interoperability can be provided by

RSS libraries supporting multiple formats• Need for a more sophisticated approach such as model in

“A Contextual Framework For Standards”, WWW 2006

RS

S E

xam

ple


www.ukoln.ac.uk

20

The Context

There will be a context to use of standards:• The intended use:

Mainstream Innovative / research Key middleware component Small-scale

deliverable

• Organisational culture: HE vs FE Teaching vs Research Service vs Development …

• Available Funding & Resources: Significant funding & training to use new standards Minimal funding - current skills should be used

• …

Co

nte

xtu

al I

ssu

es

An open standards culture is being developed, which is supportive of use of open standards, but which recognises the complexities and can avoid mistakes made in the past

An open standards culture is being developed, which is supportive of use of open standards, but which recognises the complexities and can avoid mistakes made in the past


www.ukoln.ac.uk

21

Quality Assurance

External factors: institutional, cultural, legal, …

The Layered Standards Model

JISCJISC

JISC / project

JISC / project

3rd Parties

3rd Parties

Owner

Annotated Standards Catalogue

Purpose Governance Maturity Risks …

Prog. n Funding Research Sector …

Context: Policies

External Self assessment Penalties Learning

Context: Compliance

JISC's layered standards model, developed by UKOLN. Note that one size doesn't always fit all


www.ukoln.ac.uk

22

The Standards Catalogue is deemed important – but there’s a still lack of understanding of the contextual model

The Standards Catalogue

The information provided aims to be simple and succinct (but document will still be large when printed!)

Standard: Dublin Core About the Standard: Dublin Core is a metadata standard made up …Version: New terms are regularly added to … Maturity: Dublin Core has its origins in workshops held …Risk Assessment: Dublin Core plays a key role …. It is an important standard within the context of JISC development programmes. Further Information:

• DCMI, <http://dublincore.org/> • …

Author: Pete Johnston, UKOLN Contributor: Date Created: 04 Oct 2005 Update History: Initial version.

Example

Note that as the standards catalogue is intended for wide use the contents will need to be fairly general


www.ukoln.ac.uk

23

What If Web 2.0 Changes Everything?

“Web 2.0 Changes Everything” – what if this is true? The “Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World” report suggests that Senior Managers in HE may feel this to be the case

• “Network is the platform” / The Cloud• Web infrastructure becomes the infrastructure

(HE follows, no longer leads)• Growing importance of informal learning• Growing importance of informal networking• Growing reluctance to travel (travelling to CILIP-S

on par with dodgy MPs’ expenses claims?)• …


www.ukoln.ac.uk

24

The DNER/IE DiagramWeb 2.0 in the context of Andy Powell’s famous IE diagram (early version shown)

..which later was developed further


www.ukoln.ac.uk

25

My Take

My Vision

In 2001 I suggested that application services could be provided ‘out there’ (in The Cloud).

I speculated about the JISC Spellchecker and JISC ‘delicious’ services

What I Missed!

What I thought about but failed to articulate (it seemed (a) Thatcherite out-sourcing & (b) too complex) was commercial provision of the services & large-scale apps e.g. Google Docs


www.ukoln.ac.uk

26

Services In ‘The Cloud’

Will Web 2.0 services in ‘The Cloud’ make national initiatives irrelevant?Or will there be a mix of institutional, national and global providers of solutions?Or will institutional & national services make use of infrastructure in ‘The Cloud’?


www.ukoln.ac.uk

27

What About The Developers?In the old days:

• Development was slow and required significant levels of funding

• Funders and budget holders could manage development process

Today:• Web infrastructure more

mature (standards, services, APIs, …)

• Light-weight is ‘cool’• Developers don’t want 3

year projects (and associated bureaucracy) – but food & drink are good!


www.ukoln.ac.uk

28

What Can Be In A Weekend?

Tony Hurst’s visualisations of MPs expenses claims


www.ukoln.ac.uk

29

Community Matters

Importance of developer community now being appreciated:

• In JISC Circles (cf dev8d week; Mashed Library events; Rapid Innovation Call)

• In Museums sector (cf. Mashed Museum events)

• In commercial sector (cf barcamps)

• In government circles (cf. Government barcamps)

• …http://dev8d.jiscinvolve.org/2009/03/30/http://dev8d.jiscinvolve.org/2009/03/30/

Dev8D: Developer Happiness Days event sponsored by JISC. See <http://dev8d.jiscinvolve.org/>


www.ukoln.ac.uk

30

Deployment StrategiesInterested in using Web 2.0 in your organisation?Worried about corporate inertia, power struggles, etc?There’s a need for a deployment strategy:

• Addressing business needs• Low-hanging fruits• Encouraging the enthusiasts• Gain experience of the browser tools – and see

what you’re missing!• Staff training & development• Impact assessment and measurement• Risk and opportunity management strategy• Critical Friends and friendly critics• Culture of sharing• …


www.ukoln.ac.uk

31

Risk Management JISC infoNet Risk Management infoKit:

“In education, as in any other environment, you can’t decide not to take risks: that simply isn’t an option in today’s world. All of us take risks and it’s a question of which risks we take”

Examples of people who are likely to be adverse stakeholders:• People .. required to commit resources to the project • People who fear loss of control over a function or

resources • People who will have to do their job in a different way • People who will have to carry out new functions • People who will have to use a new technology • ..

Str

ateg

ies


www.ukoln.ac.uk

32

Critical Friends

JISC U&I programme is encouraging establishment of “Critical Friends”

See <http://critical-friends.org/>See <http://critical-friends.org/>

Paul Walk (UKOLN) was described as a ‘critical friend’ of JISCSee <http://dev8d.jiscinvolve.org/2009/

02/10/five-minute-interview-paul-walk/>

See <http://dev8d.jiscinvolve.org/2009/02/10/five-minute-interview-paul-walk/>


www.ukoln.ac.uk

33

Biases

Subjective factors

Towards a Framework

“Time To Stop Doing and Start Thinking: A Framework For Exploiting Web 2.0 Services”, Museums & the Web 2009 conference

IntendedPurpose

Benefits (various

stakeholdersRisks

(various stakeholders

Missed Opps. (various

stakeholdersCosts


• Sharing experiences

• Learning from successes& failures

• Tackling biases• …

• Critical friends• Application to

existing services

• Application to in-house development

• …


www.ukoln.ac.uk

34

Using The Framework

Use of approach in two scenarios: use of Twitter & Facebook

IntendedPurpose

Benefits (various

stakeholdersRisks



stakeholdersCosts


Community support

Rapid feedback

Justify ROIOrg. brand

Community-building

Low?

Twitter for individuals Organisational Fb Page

Marketing events,…

Large audiences

Ownership, privacy, lock-in

Marketing opportunity

Low?

Critical friends:• Paul Walk / Brian

Kelly blog posts)• MCG

discussionsLearning

• UKOLN cultural heritage guest blog post

• Conferences• Papers• …

Note personal biases!Note personal biases!


www.ukoln.ac.uk

35

Using The Framework (2)

Use of approach with standards: doing nothing (today) might be an option!

IntendedPurpose

Benefits (various

stakeholdersRisks



stakeholdersCosts


Semantic Web No standard

Critical friends:• JISC Advisers• Developers• International

communityLearning

• From developers• Conferences• Papers• …


www.ukoln.ac.uk

36

The Assumptions

Standards:• Interoperability through open standards• Avoidance of proprietary lock-in & other benefits• All we need is to identify the correct open

standards• This will save us time, money & deliver rich

functionality and usable & useful services

Development:• The developers can then simply use the

standards • This will also provide seamless evolution to new

standards


www.ukoln.ac.uk

37

Challenging The AssumptionsMaybe we want:

• To challenge the unthinking assumptions in national development programmes –using evidence rather than assertions

• The benefits promised (but not necessarily delivered) by open standards

• An understanding that it’s not a binary open standards vs proprietary world

• The world may choose good enough, whilst we want to provide the best

• To develop user-focussed services which the commercial sector seems to be better at

• To recognise the importance of the developers’ perspective

And we should also challenge these views!And we should also challenge these views!


www.ukoln.ac.uk

38

Questions

Any questions, comments, …?Additional Resources:Papers published on standards and national programmes:

• What Does Openness Mean To The Museum Community?, MW 2008• Openness in Higher Education: Open Source, Open Standards, Open

Access, elPub 2008• Addressing The Limitations Of Open Standards, MW 2007• A Contextual Framework For Standards, WWW 2006• A Standards Framework For Digital Library Programmes, ichim05• Interoperability Across Digital Library Programmes? We Must Have

QA!, ECDL 2004• Deployment Of Quality Assurance Procedures For Digital Library

Programmes, IADIS 2003• Developing A Quality Culture For Digital Library Programmes, EUNIS

2003• Ideology Or Pragmatism? Open Standards And Cultural Heritage Web

Sites, ichim03See <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/#standards>

Additional Resources:Papers published on standards and national programmes:

• What Does Openness Mean To The Museum Community?, MW 2008• Openness in Higher Education: Open Source, Open Standards, Open

Access, elPub 2008• Addressing The Limitations Of Open Standards, MW 2007• A Contextual Framework For Standards, WWW 2006• A Standards Framework For Digital Library Programmes, ichim05• Interoperability Across Digital Library Programmes? We Must Have

QA!, ECDL 2004• Deployment Of Quality Assurance Procedures For Digital Library

Programmes, IADIS 2003• Developing A Quality Culture For Digital Library Programmes, EUNIS

2003• Ideology Or Pragmatism? Open Standards And Cultural Heritage Web

Sites, ichim03See <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/#standards>

how far have we come? from elib to nof-digi and beyond

Documents