Interoperability? We Must Have QA!

1
Interoperability? We Must Have QA!
http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/meetings/a
rchivists-2004-11/

• About This Talk
• This talk describes the work of the JISC-funded
  QA Focus
• About the project
• The QA methodology
• QA Focus resources
• Relevance to the archives sector
• A brief description of UKOLN will also be given

• Brian Kelly
• UKOLN
• University of Bath
• Bath

Email B.Kelly_at_ukoln.ac.uk URL http//www.ukoln
.ac.uk/qa-focus/
2
About Me / About UKOLN
Background

• About Me
• UK Web Focus Web advisory post
• Long-standing involvement with Web
• Based at UKOLN since Nov 1996
• UKOLNs Policy Advice Team leader
• Team leader of Interoperability Focus team
• UKOLN
• National centre of expertise in digital
  information management
• Based at the University of Bath
• Funded by JISC and MLA to support the higher
  further education communities cultural heritage
  sector

3
UKOLN and Cultural Heritage
Background

• UKOLN
• Long-standing involvement in support for Higher
  Education Public Library sector
• Have recently strengthened its Interoperability
  Focus team
• Due to changes in funding bodies increasingly
  working with
• Further Education
• Museums, Libraries and Archives
• Examples
• Workshops for MLA Regional Agencies
• Participations at key national events e.g. mda
  conferences, Museums Web conference,
• Provided (with AHDS) the Technical Advisory
  Service for the NOF-digitise programme

4
Supporting Digital Library Programmes
Background

• UKOLN has long-standing involvement in support
  for national digital library programmes
• JISC's eLib programme (from about 1995-2000)
  development of eLib Standards document, hosting
  eLib central Web site,
• The NOF-digitise programme (2002-2004)
  development of NOF-digi Standards document,
  providing NOF-digi Technical Advisory Service,
• JISC 5/99, X4L, FAIR (and other) programmes
  (2002-2004) development of QA framework by the
  QA Focus project

5
Promoting Open Standards

• We have advocated use of open standards
• To provide application-independence remember
  when documents were trapped into particular word
  processing software
• To provide platform-independence allowing
  migration across PCs, Macs, Unix boxes, PDAs,
  etc.
• To support interoperability allowing data to be
  integrated across systems
• To provide long term access to data avoiding
  the digital dark ages
• To provide a coherent architectural model which
  allows for evolution and integration
• To provide an open marketplace allowing users
  to choice their preferred solution

Open Standards
6
Not As Easy As It Seems

• Problems encountered
• What are open standards?
• PDF, Java, Flash, MS Word,
• Advantages of proprietary formats
• Open standards
• May not be used correctly (cf over 90 of HTML
  pages don't comply with standard)
• May not take off (cf. OSI Coloured Books)
• May be difficult to understand or require
  technical expertise not readily available (cf
  RDF)
• May change in light of implementation experiences
  (wait until version 3?)

Open Standards
In light of such issues should we (a) leave it to
the marketplace (b) have greater policing
(penalty clauses for non-compliance or (c)
develop an alternative approach
7
Support For Digital Library Programmes

• The approaches taken in JISCs digital library
  programmes includes
• Use of open standards to ensure interoperability,
  wide accessibility and interoperability and long
  term access to resources
• Advice provided by funders covering reporting
  processes, project management, evaluation,
  sustainability,
• Peer support infrastructure implemented to
  support sharing collaboration (e.g. mailing
  lists for techies)
• No formal checking of compliance with technical
  standards and best practices

Digital Library programmes
8
Stronger Policing?

• A lack of formal compliance checking
• Sensible in eLib days when standards still being
  developed (Gopher anybody?)
• Nowadays
• Web and XML acknowledged as key technologies
• Were no longer building self-contained solutions
• Interoperability is key
• Funders seek to ensure deliverables can be
  repurposed
• But
• Is a formal compliance checking service
  appropriate?

Digital Library programmes
9
NOF-digitise Experience

• NOF-digitise
• Lottery-funded programme to digitise cultural
  heritage resources
• Technical advice provided by UKOLN and AHDS
• Compliance checking provided by BECTa
• Comments
• Formal compliance checking probably needed due to
  lack of experience by many projects
• Compliance checking can be expensive
• Compliance may be regarded as being imposed
• Importance of open standards may not be embedded
  within organisations
• Approach is alien to culture within HE

NOF-digi TAS Web site
Digital Library programmes
10
QA Focus
QA Focus

• JISC
• Issued ITT for a Digitisation and QA Focus post
  to support JISCs 5/99 programme in 2001
• Remit to develop QA methodology to ensure project
  deliverables interoperable, accessible,
• QA Focus
• UKOLN and TASI proposal accepted by JISC
• After first year provided by UKOLN and AHDS
• 1 FTE split across two services
• Built on UKOLNs AHDSs experiences with
  NOF-digi Technical Advisory Service
• Addressed various technical areas including
• Digitisation ? Web / Access ? Metadata
• Software ? Service Deployment ? ...

11
A QA Approach
QA Focus

• The approach taken by QA Focus was developmental
• Seek to ensure projects understand importance of
  open standards
• Encourage a culture of sharing experiences and
  best practices
• Appreciate difficulties projects may experience
  in implementing standards and best practices
• Develop a self-assessment approach for monitoring
  compliance
• Publish brief focussed advice for projects
• Commission case studies from projects

12
Why Do Things Go Wrong?
QA Focus

• Networked services may go wrong (i.e. fail to be
  functional, widely accessible or interoperable)
  for a variety of reasons
• Failure to understand the need for standards
• Failure to use appropriate standards
• Failure to use appropriate technical architecture
• Failure to test
• Failure to embed best practices
• In addition there may be non-technical reasons
  (lack of resources, poor management, etc.) Such
  issues were out-of-scope for QA Focus but there
  are overlaps with addressing technical problems

13
Addressing These Issues
QA Focus

• QA Focus sought to address these issues by
  providing brief focussed advice on
• The importance of standards in general an
  appreciation of standards in particular areas
  (e.g. Web, metadata, )
• The pros and cons of particular architectural
  frameworks
• The importance of checking compliance and advice
  of different approaches to checking

But it's easy to provide advice. How do we
ensure that the advice is actually implemented?
14
QA Methodology
Deliverables

• We developed a light-weight QA methodology based
  on documented policies systematic compliance
  checking

Policy  Web Standards Standard XHTML 1.0 and
CSS 2.0 Architecture Use of SSIs and text
editor Exceptions Automatically-derived files
Checking Use ,validate after update Audit
Trail Use ,rvalidate monthly for reports
Mechanisms should be implemented to ensure the
policy is being implemented. Findings may be used
in-house, shared with peers or (possibly)
reported to steering groups, funders, etc.
Example of lightweight checking tool append
,tool to URL
15
Selection of Standards
QA Focus

• Standards are important but may be immature, fail
  to take off, difficult to deploy, difficult to
  select,
• Ideology Or Pragmatism? Open Standards And
  Cultural Heritage Web Sites gives an approach
  for selecting standards

A checklist for selection of standards has been
developed An online toolkit version is also
available We envisage the toolkit supporting
internal decision-making, with decisions
documented (possibly for approval)
16
Other Resources
QA Focus

• We have also produced
• Over 70 briefing documents
• Over 30 case studies
• A simple online toolkit which can help projects
  in ensuring they have addressed appropriate best
  practices

17
What Next?
What Next?

• QA Focus project funding finished on 31 July 2004
• Plans for the future
• Seeking further funding to develop methodology in
  more depth in other areas (e.g. metadata, service
  deployment, )
• We intend to maintain existing resources as part
  of our core work activities
• We will seek to embed QA in our working practices
• We intend to support QA approaches across other
  communities (e.g. FE HE, museums, libraries
  archives)
• We intend to make QA Focus resources available
  under a Creative Commons licence

18
QA For Other Digital Library Programmes
What Next?

• Nightmare Scenario
• Digital Library programmes in UK, EU, USA,
  built on open standards (XML, DC, OAI, )
• National developments across public sector
  (government, education, cultural heritage, etc.)
  built on similar open standards
• But standards not implemented correctly or
  consistently leading to problems
• QA Across Digital Library Programmes
• There is a need for QA in order to ensure
  interoperability
• QA methodology may be appropriate for national
  international DL community
• QA Focus encourages other DL programmes to may
  use of QA Focus methodology and resources

19
Applicability To Archives

• What applicability does all this have to
• The Society of Archivists EAD Group
• The wider archives community

QA And Archives

• You may be thinking
• I'm an archivist I don't do Web sites
• I use a dedicated archivist package and export
  data to the Web. Is this relevant?
• I work on a volunteer basis and have limited
  time, resources, technical expertise,
• My wonderful CMS, Wiki, PHP scripts, will
  guarantee it all works
• It sounds very interesting. I'd like to
  implement QA. Will you be addressing other areas?

20
Society of Archivists EAD Group Web Site

• Simple checks of Web site indicate
• Some HTML compliance errors
• Small number of broken links (including link to
  "EAD Best Practice Guidelines from the Research
  Libraries Group" on links page)
• CSS is fine on home page

QA And Archives

• Issues
• Broken links should probably be fixed (esp.
  important ones) as this relates to the
  functionality of the Web site.
• HTML compliance is a policy issue and is affected
  by tools and workflow processes. Survey shows
  that some errors are easy to fix, whereas others
  are due to saving from MS Word document.

21
Checking With Limited Resources

• You may have limited resources, technical
  expertise, other priorities,
• A technical audit may still be worthwhile
• In order to scope extent of any problems
• To see if simple tweaks to publishing process can
  bring significant benefits
• To avoid your boss making embarrassing public
  statements ("Yes we have a fully accessible Web
  site" you can't comply with WAI AA guidelines
  if your HTML is broken)
• Simple approaches to auditing
• Use of Web-based checking services
• URI interface to the services
• Bookmarklet interface to the services

QA And Archives
22
Automated Tools

• QA Focus toolkit provides access to various
  checking tools which are freely available on the
  Web
• Appending ,tools to any UKOLN page will un tools
  (e.g. ,validate)
• Note also that bookmarklets are available for use
  in most browsers (use in Mozilla Firefox browser
  is shown)

http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/toolkit/web-01/
23
You Will Want A Richer Web!

• You will want a richer, more structured Web
  service
• XHTML pages may display more quickly
• XML (e.g. XHTML) resources are more easily
  repurposed
• XHTML pages must comply with standard

RSS Example
RSS is a lightweight news / syndication standard
which allows information to be repurposed (e.g.
what's new pages displayed in pop-up alerts,
bookmarks, email, )
24
QA And Metadata (1)

• Metadata
• Not just for resource discovery metadata
  provides the "glue" for interoperable services
• Metadata is data which is used by software
• If the metadata is 'wrong' interoperable services
  may break
• Unlike data, we don't normally 'see' the metadata
  so visual inspection, user feedback, etc. won't
  spot errors

QA And Archives
Metadata is particularly important to the
cultural heritage sector, who have long-standing
experience in cataloguing, developing schemas,
etc. There is a need to build on this expertise
to help us build richer interoperable digital
services
25
QA And Metadata (2)
QA Areas
Training Cataloguing rules Input validation
tools Centralised vs distributed
QA And Archives
Data input
Data processing
Work flow Cleaning data Handling
exceptions Understanding system
CMS, Wikis,PHP scripts,
Compliance with output standards Use by humans
and software Accessibility, usability
interoperability
Output
26
QA And Archives Standards

• For you to think about
• Are these issues applicable to effective use of
  archives standards?
• Is the QA Focus approach applicable?

QA And Archives
27
Deploying QA Approaches (1)

• If you wish to implement QA Focus methodology in
  your organisation
• Resources on Web site and ideas free to use
• You can download and tailor content of briefing
  papers (subject to credit being given)
• Extending the work
• We primarily addressed Web digitisation and
  just briefly addressed other areas
• We'd like to cover other technical areas
• We'd welcome case studies (you explain what you
  did we promote you as good practice)
• We'd welcome contributions to the briefing
  documents this helps address the sustainability
  of the resources

QA And Archives
28
Deploying QA Approaches (2)

• UKOLN provide a Benchmarking Web Sites workshop
  for the MLA sector
• Has been hosted by MLA Regional Agencies
• Hands-on workshop for 12-25 participants
• Enables participants to check aspects of their
  Web sites, compare with their peers and learn
  from best practices and mistakes to avoid
• Addresses QA approaches to help implement best
  practices
• No charge from UKOLN apart from expenses (you
  provide venue and audience)
• See lthttp//www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/work
  shops/nemlac-2004-09/gt

QA And Archives
Would this workshop be of interest to the
archives sector? If so, who could host it?
29
Questions

• Any questions?