Web Standards

1
Web Standards

• Brian Kelly Email Address
• UK Web Focus B.Kelly_at_ukoln.ac.uk
• UKOLN URL
• University of Bath http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/

UKOLN is funded by the British Library Research
and Innovation Centre, the Joint Information
Systems Committee of the Higher Education Funding
Councils, as well as by project funding from the
JISCs Electronic Libraries Programme and the
European Union. UKOLN also receives support from
the University of Bath where it is based.
2
Contents

• Introduction
• Web Standards Overview
• Web Standards
• Data Formats
• Transport
• Addressing
• Metadata
• Distributed Searching
• Deployment Issues

• Aims of Talk
• To give brief overview of web architecture
• To describe developments to web standards
• To briefly address implementation models

3
About UK Web Focus

• UK Web Focus
• JISC-funded post
• Advises UK HE community on web developments
• Represents JISC on World Wide Web Consortium
  (W3C)
• Organises events (e.g. national web managers
  workshop)
• Dissemination of information (e.g. see Web Focus
  column in Ariadne - http//www.ariadne.ac.uk/)

4
Why Care About Standards?

• This talk covers development of web standards,
  not web applications
• An understanding of web standards is needed
• To appreciate when solutions are proprietary
• To provide flexibility and interoperability
• To avoid developing home-grown application
  solutions, when protocol solutions are in the
  offing
• The seminar is aimed at
• Web applications developers (e.g. CBL)
• Developers of components of the Distributed
  National Electronic Resource (DNER)
• Web researchers
• Other interested parties

5
Standardisation

• Proprietary
• De facto standards
• Often initially appealing (cf PowerPoint, PDF)
• May emerge as standards

HTML extensions PDF and Java?

• W3C
• Produces W3C Recommendations on Web protocols
• Managed approach to developments
• Protocols initially developed by W3C members
• Decisions made by W3C, influenced by member and
  public review

PNG HTML Z39.50 Java?

• ISO
• Produces ISO Standards
• Can be slow moving and bureaucratic
• Produce robust standards

• IETF
• Produces Internet Drafts on Internet protocols
• Bottom-up approach to developments
• Protocols developed by interested individuals
• "Rough consensus and working code"

HTTP URNwhois
PNG HTML HTTP
6
The Web Vision

• Tim Berners-Lee's vision for the Web
• Evolvability is critical
• Automation of information management If a
  decision can be made by machine, it should
• All structured data formats should be based on
  XML
• Migrate HTML to XML
• All logical assertions to map onto RDF model
• All metadata to use RDF
• See keynote talk at WWW 7 conference at ltURL
  http//www.w3.org/Talks/1998/0415-Evolvability/sl
  ide1-1.htmgt

7
HTML 4.0, CSS 2.0 and DOM

• HTML 4.0 used in conjunction with CSS 2.0
  (Cascading Style Sheets) and the DOM provides an
  architecturally pure, yet functionally rich
  environment

• HTML 4.0 - W3C-Rec
• Improved forms
• Hooks for stylesheets
• Hooks for scripting languages
• Table enhancements
• Better printing

• CSS 2.0 - W3C-Rec
• Support for all HTML formatting
• Positioning of HTML elements
• Multiple media support

• DOM - W3C-Rec
• Document Object Model
• Hooks for scripting languages
• Permits changes to HTML CSS properties and
  content

• Problems
• Changes during CSS development
• Netscape IE incompatibilities
• Continued use of browsers with known bugs

8
HTML Limitations

• HTML 4.0 / CSS 2.0 have limitations
• Difficulties in introducing new elements
• Time-consuming standardisation process (ltABBREVgt)
• Dictated by browser vendor (ltBLINKgt, ltMARQUEEgt)
• Area may be inappropriate for standarisation
• Covers specialist area (maths, music, ...)
• Application-specific (ltSTUD-NUMgt)
• HTML is a display (output) format
• HTML's lack of arbitrary structure limits
  functionality
• Find all memos copied to John Smith
• How many unique tracks on Jackson Browne CDs

9
XML

• XML
• Extensible Markup Language
• A lightweight SGML designed for network use
• Addresses HTML's lack of evolvability
• Arbitrary elements can be defined
  (ltSTUDENT-NUMBERgt, ltPART-NOgt, etc)
• Agreement achieved quickly - XML 1.0 became W3C
  Recommendation in Feb 1998
• Support from industry (SGML vendors, Microsoft,
  etc.)
• Support in Netscape 5 and IE 5

10
XML Deployment

• Ariadne issue 15 has article on "What Is XML?"
• Describes how XML support can be provided
• Natively by new browsers
• Back end conversion of XML - HTML
• Client-side conversion of XML - HTML / CSS
• Java rendering of XML
• Examples of intermediaries

See http//www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue15/what-is/
11
XLink, XPointer and XSL

• XLink will provide sophisticated hyperlinking
  missing in HTML
• Links that lead user to multiple destinations
• Bidirectional links
• Links with special behaviours
• Expand-in-place / Replace / Create new window
• Link on load / Link on user action
• Link databases
• XPointer will provide access to arbitrary
  portions of XML resource
• XSL stylesheet language will provide
  extensibility and transformation facilities (e.g.
  create a table of contents)

ltcommentary xmllink"extended" inline"false"gt
ltlocator href"smith2.1" role"Essay"/gt
ltlocator href"jones1.4" role"Rebuttal"/gt
ltlocator href"robin3.2" role"Comparison"/gt
lt/commentarygt
12
XML Update

• Data / Schemas
• XML-Data Submitted to W3C Jan 98 (Obsolete?)
• Document Content Description Submitted Aug 98
• XSchema Independent effort
• Programming Interface
• DOM level 1 W3C Recommendation, May 98
• Style Presentation
• CSS level 2 W3C Recommendation, May 98
• Extensible Style Language Working Draft, Aug 98
• Relationship to Other Resources
• XLink , XPointer Working Drafts, Mar 98
• XML Namespaces Working Draft, Aug 98
• Query Languages
• XML Query Language Submitted to W3C Aug 98
• XQL Independent effort

13
Addressing

• URLs (e.g. http//www.bristol-poly.ac.uk/depts/mu
  sic/) have limitations
• Lack of long-term persistency
• Organisation changes name
• Department shut down or merged
• Directory structure reorganised
• Inability to support multiple versions of
  resources (mirroring)
• URNs (Uniform Resource Names)
• Proposed as solution
• Difficult to implement (no W3C activity in this
  area)

14
Addressing - Solutions

• DOIs (Document Object Identifiers)
• Proposed by publishing industry as a solution
• Aimed at supporting rights ownership
• Business model needed
• PURLs (Persistent URLs)
• Provide single level of redirection
• Pragmatic Solution
• URLs don't break - people break them
• Design URLs to have long life-span

15
Transport

• HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1.0
• Design flaws and implementation problems
• HTTP/1.1
• Addresses some of these problems
• 60 server support
• Performance benefits! (60 packet traffic
  reduction)
• Is acting as fire-fighter
• Not sufficiently flexible or extensible
• HTTP/NG
• Radical redesign using object-oriented
  technologies
• Undergoing trials
• Gradual transition (using proxies)
• Integration of application (distributed
  searching?)

16
Metadata

• Metadata - the missing architectural component
  from the initial implementation of the web

• Metadata Needs
• Resource discovery
• Content filtering
• Authentication
• Improved navigation
• Multiple format support
• Rights management

17
Metadata Examples

• DSig (Digital Signatures initiative)
• Key component for providing trust on the web
• DSig 2.0 will be based on RDF and will support
  signed assertion
• This page is from the University of Bath
• This page is a legally-binding list of courses
  provided by the University
• P3P (Platform for Privacy Preferences)
• Developing methods for exchanging Privacy
  Practices of Web sites and user
• Note that discussions about additional rights
  management metadata are currently taking place

18
Sitemaps
http//www.elsop.com/linkscan/map.html

• Sitemaps provide navigational alternatives to
  browsing a site by following links.
• Configurable site maps will enable end users to
  define hierarchies

19
RDF

• RDF (Resource Description Framework)
• Highlight of WWW 7 conference
• Provides a metadata framework ("machine
  understandable metadata for the web")
• Based on ideas from content rating (PICS),
  resource discovery (Dublin Core) and site mapping
  (MCF)
• Applications include
• cataloging resources resource discovery
• electronic commerce intelligent agents
• digital signatures content rating
• intellectual property rights privacy
• See ltURL http//www.w3.org/Talks/1998/0417-WWW7-
  RDFgt

20
RDF Model
RDF Data Model

• RDF
• Based on a formal data model (direct label
  graphs)
• Syntax for interchange of data
• Schema model

PropertyType
Resource
Value
Property
page.html
Cost
0.05
Cost
ValidUntil
page.html
0.05
11-May-98
PropObj
InstanceOf
Value
Property
ValidUntil
PropName
11-May-98
Cost
21
Browser Support for RDF
Trusted 3rd Party Metadata

• Mozilla (Netscape's source code release) provides
  support for RDF.
• Mozilla supports site maps in RDF, as well as
  bookmarks and history lists
• See Netscape's or HotWired home page for a link
  to the RDF file.

Embedded Metadata e.g. sitemaps
Image from http//purl.oclc.org/net/eric/talks/www
7/devday/
22
RDF Conclusion

• RDF is a general-purpose framework
• RDF provides structured, machine-understandable
  metadata for the Web
• Metadata vocabularies can be developed without
  central coordination
• RDF Schemas describe the meaning of each property
  name
• Signed RDF is the basis for trust

23
Distributed Searching

• Distributed searching important for the DNER
  (Distributed National Electronic Resource)

AHDS prototype provides cross-searching using
Z39.50
ROADS prototype provides cross-searching using
whois
24
Distributed Searching Issues

• Providing access to resources by software rather
  than by humans raises several issues
• Loss of service visibility / value-added web
  services
• Possible performance problems
• Information overload
• Finding the service
• Solutions
• Giving visibility and pointers in results sets
• Service metadata
• Service only available for cross-searching by non
  AC.UK users outside peak hours
• Need for agreed metadata standards (profiles,
  rights issues, )

25
Deployment Issues

• How can new technologies be deployed?
• Expect (hope) everyone will move to new browsers
• Use technologies in backwards-compatible manner
• Develop additional protocols e.g.
• Transparent Content Negotiation
• CC/PP (see http//www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPP)
• User-agent negotiation
• Use of proxy intermediaries

26
Deployment Issues

• More sophisticated deployment techniques can be
  adopted to overcome deficiencies in simple model

Original Model
Web server simply sends file to client File
contains redundant information (for old browsers)
plus client interrogation support
HTML resource
Web server
Sophisticated Model
HTML / XML / databaseresource
IntelligentWeb server
Client proxy
Server proxy

• Intermediaries can provide functionality not
  available at client
• DOI support
• XML support / format conversion
• Authentication

Example of an intermediary
27
Conclusions

• To conclude
• Standards are important, especially for national
  initiatives and other large-scale services
• Proprietary solutions are often tempting because
• They are available
• They are often well-marketed and well-supported
• They may become standardised
• Solutions based on standards may not be properly
  supported by applications
• Metadata is big growth area
• Intermediaries (brokers) likely to have a key
  role to play in deploying standards-based
  solutions
• Intelligent servers likely to be important