brian kelly: relevant content on this site

HTML5 Case Studies: Introduction

Administrator — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:59:11 +0000

Case studies illustrating development approaches to use of HTML5 and related Open Web Platform standards in the UK Higher Education sector.

Author: Brian Kelly

1. About This Document

This document provides an introduction to a series of HTML5 case studies which were commissioned by the JISC. The document gives an introduction to HTML5 and related standards developed by the W3C and explains why these developments represent a significant development to Web standards, which is of more significance than previous incremental developments to HTML and CSS.

2. About HTML5

As described in Wikipedia [1] HTML5 is a markup language for structuring and presenting content on the Web. HTML5 is the fifth version of the HTML language which was created in 1990. Since then the language has evolved from HTML 1, HTML 2, HTML 3.2, HTML 4 and XHTML 1.

The core aims of HTML5 are to improve the language with support for the latest multimedia while keeping it easily readable by humans and consistently understood by computers and devices.

HTML5 has been developed as a response to the observation that the HTML and XHTML standards in common use on the Web are a mixture of features introduced by various specifications, along with those introduced by software products such as web browsers, those established by common practice, and the many syntax errors in existing web documents

It is also an attempt to define a single markup language that can be written in either HTML or XHTML syntax. It includes detailed processing models to encourage more interoperable implementations; it extends, improves and rationalises the markup available for documents, and introduces markup and application programming interfaces (APIs) for complex web applications.

For the same reasons, HTML5 is also a potential candidate for cross-platform mobile applications. Many features of HTML5 have been built with the consideration of being able to run on low-powered devices such as smartphones and tablets.

In particular, HTML5 adds many new syntactical features. These include the new,andelements, as well as the integration of Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) content that replaces the uses of generic tags and MathML for mathematical formulae.

As illustrated in Figure 2 HTML5 is built on a series of related technologies, which are at different stages of standardisation (see [2]). These features are designed to make it easy to include and handle multimedia and graphical content on the web without having to resort to proprietary plugins and APIs. Other new elements, such as,,and, are designed to enrich the semantic content of documents. New attributes have been introduced for the same purpose, while some elements and attributes have been removed. Some elements, such as , and

have been changed, redefined or standardised. The APIs and document object model (DOM) are no longer afterthoughts, but are fundamental parts of the HTML5 specification. HTML5 also defines in some detail the required processing for invalid documents so that syntax errors will be treated uniformly by all conforming browsers and other user agents.

3. The Open Web Platform

The Open Web Platform (OWP) is the name given to a collection of Web standards which have been developed by the W3C [3]. The Open Web Platform has been defined as “a platform for innovation, consolidation and cost efficiencies” [4].

The Open Web Platform covers Web standards such as HTML5, CSS 2.1, CSS3 (including the Selectors, Media Queries, Text, Backgrounds and Borders, Colors, 2D Transformations, 3D Transformations, Transitions, Animations, and Multi-Columns modules), CSS Namespaces, SVG 1.1, MathML 3, WAI-ARIA 1.0, ECMAScript 5, 2D Context, WebGL, Web Storage, Indexed Database API, Web Workers, WebSockets Protocol/API, Geolocation API, Server-Sent Events, Element Traversal, DOM Level 3 Events, Media Fragments, XMLHttpRequest, Selectors API, CSSOM View Module, Cross-Origin Resource Sharing, File API, RDFa, Microdata and WOFF.

Use of the term Open Web Platform can be helpful in describing developments which make use of standards which complement HTML5.

The list of Web standards covered by the term provides an indication of the significant developments which are currently taking place which aim to provide much greater and more robust support for use of the Web across a variety of platforms and for a variety of uses.

4. Importance to Higher Education

The Web became of strategic importance to higher education in the mid 1990s primarily in its role as an informational resource. As the potential of Web became better understood new types of services were developed and the Web is now used to support the key areas of significance to higher educational institutions: teaching and learning and research.

However although innovative uses of the Web have been seen in these areas, the limitations of Web standards made it difficult and costly to develop highly-interactive cross-platform applications. Such difficulties meant that significant developments in use of the Web to provide applications (as opposed to access to information) was being led to large global companies, with Google's range of services such as Google Docs providing an example of a widely used Web-based application.

The experiences gained in developing such Web-based applications led to the evolution of Web standards to support such development work. In addition the growth in popularity of mobile devices led to the development of standards which could be used across multiple types of devices, in addition to the cross-platform independence which allowed Web services to be accessed across desktop PCs running MS Windows, Apple Macintosh or Linux operating systems.

Developments to the HTML5 standard enable multimedia resources to be embedded in HTML resources as a native resources. In addition developments to related standards, such as SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) and MathML (the Mathematics Markup Language) together with developments to standards which support programmatic manipulation of objects defined in these markup languages will provide a rich environment for the development of new types of tools and services which will be value to support a range of institutional requirements.

In addition the support for mobile devices will enable access to this new generation of applications to be provided across a range of mobile devices, including iPhones and iPads, Android devices and smart phones and tablet computers which may use operating systems provided by other vendors.

In brief the development of HTML5 and the Open Web Platform can provide the following benefits across higher education:

A rich environment for the development of applications which can run in a Web browser.
A rich environment for the development of applications which can run across a range of platforms and suit the particular requirements of mobile devices.
A rich environment for defining the structure of scholarly resources, such as research papers, to support more effective processing of the resources.
A neutral and open environment based on use of open standards which can provide a level playing field for application development.

5. About the HTML5 Case Studies

The HTML5 case studies have been commissioned in order to demonstrate development approaches taking place across the higher education sector by early adopters in order to support a variety of use cases which are particularly relevant in a higher education context.

The case studies are aimed primarily at developers and technical managers who wish to gain a better understanding of ways in which development approaches based on use of HTML5 and Open Web Platform can be used.

Whilst the examples described in the case studies are being used across a number of higher educational institutions we appreciate that not all institutions will wish to make use of the approaches described in the case studies - in particular we recognise that institutions may not have the development and support expertise to emulate the approaches described in the following documents. However increasingly we are seeing commercial vendors making use of HTML5 in new versions of their products. This suggests vendor support for HTML5 may be a relevant factor that in the procurement of new applications.

6. Summary of the HTML5 Case Studies

The HTML5 case studies included in this work are summarised below:

Case Study 1: Semantics and Metadata: Machine-Understandable Documents by Sam Adams
Case Study 2: CWD: The Common Web Design by Alex Bilbie:
Case Study 3: Re-Implementation of the Maavis Assistive Technology Using HTML5 by Steve Lee
Case Study 4: Visualising Embedded Metadata by Mark MacGillivray
Case Study 5: The HTML5-Based e-Lecture Framework by Qingqi Wang
Case Study 6: 3Dactyl: Using WebGL to Represent Human Movement in 3D by Stephen Gray
Case Study 7: Challenging the Tyranny of Citation Formats: Automated Citation Formatting by Peter Sefton
Case Study 8: Conventions and Guidelines for Scholarly HTML5 Documents by Peter Sefton
Case Study 9: WordDown: A Word-to-HTML5 Conversion Tool by Peter Sefton

Semantics and Metadata: Machine-Understandable Documents: Case study 1 describes how embedding machine-understandable metadata into researchers' Web sites can help to enhance researchers' reputation by making their research outputs more visible, easier to discover and increasing their use.

CWD: The Common Web Design: Case study 2 describes the Common Web Design (CWD): the interface for the University of Lincoln’s online services. Developed with HTML5 and CSS3 technologies, the University of Lincoln's Common Web Design enables rapid development of attractive, interactive and modern Web sites.

Re-Implementation of the Maavis Assistive Technology Using HTML5: Case study 3 is aimed at those interested in applications that provide alternative or innovative user experiences using HTML5 Web applications. The focus is on assistive technology which is designed to enable wider access to media, apps and other online technology. This access may be for users who have varying access requirements, such as older users or those with physical or cognitive impairment. Alternatively it may be for use in environments that require alternative interaction styles, for example in bright light or with restricted access to a mobile device.

Visualising Embedded Metadata: Case study 4 addresses ways of enhancing the dissemination and discoverability of research outputs. Having achieved success in making bibliographic metadata available on a large scale there is now a need to demonstrate ways for individuals and small groups to interact easily and usefully with the data, in order to show the benefit of open bibliography and open publishing in general. This case study describes how HTML5 and related Open Web Platform standards such as JavaScript, DOM and SVG can be used to provide visualisations of embedded metadata.

The HTML5-Based e-Lecture Framework: Case study 5 focuses on providing a solution to allow e-lecture creators to convert their Microsoft PowerPoint presentations into online lectures in a simple and quick fashion. The resulting e-lecture can be easily deployed on an existing Web server and delivered to both desktop and mobile platforms.

3Dactyl: Using WebGL to Represent Human Movement in 3D: Case study 6 covers the development of 3Dactyl, a hardware and software configuration, which is intended to record and represent the physical movements of an individual online in three dimensions, for scholarly research purposes. Resulting 3D scenes (as an XML document) are embeddable within a standard Web page or VLE. Examples of such 3D footage might be various forms of performance art, e.g. dance, drama or even sport where the performance of play strokes can be carefully analysed. Within the same constraints of space, surgical or therapeutic procedures would be another feasible use. When such scenes are viewed on future versions of browsers, they will not, typically, require special plug-ins to use the 3D footage interactively

Challenging the Tyranny of Citation Formats: Automated Citation Formatting: Case study 7 looks at how citations and reference lists can be represented in HTML5 in two ways; firstly with reference information supplied in-page and secondly using URIs that point to trusted bibliographic data stores. The end goal is to automate as much of the citation and reference management experience as possible at all stages of the academic workflow, from research to authoring, to publishing to citation analysis, generation of metrics and machine processing of data.

Conventions and Guidelines for Scholarly HTML5 Documents: Case study 8 looks at the fundamentals of using HTML5 for scholarly documents of all kinds, particularly theses and courseware documents (with application to journal articles as well), but with an eye on a much broader spectrum of resources, including those which are the subject of other case studies in this project such as slide presentations. It will aim to establish the basic structural and semantic building blocks for how resources should be marked up for the Web, to increase their utility for people and machines, as well as help to ensure they can be preserved effectively.

WordDown: A Word-to-HTML5 Conversion Tool: Case study 9 examines ways that academic authors working with word processors such as Microsoft Word, the OpenOffice.org family and Google Docs would be able to produce compliant Scholarly HTML5.

References

[1] HTML5, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5>

[2] Sergey’s HTML5 & CSS3 Quick Reference. 2nd Edition, Sergey Mavrody, ISBN 978-0-9833867-2-8

[3] Open Web Platform, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Web_Platform>

[4] Jeffe Jappe, W3C CEO quoted in <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IAB_Prague_2011_slides.html>

The business of unique identification

Talat Chaudhri — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:58:26 +0000

What need is there for unique identifiers?

Put in relatively non-technical language, there is an increasing concern in information science in general to uniquely identify different things, organisations or people that could otherwise be confused, whether on the Internet or in the physical world. In technical terms, these are all referred to as resources (even if people might find it vaguely demeaning in normal language to be considered as such). This need, whether real or perceived in any particular context, has grown as the complexity of information available on the Web has grown almost exponentially, increasing the potential for confusing similar resources.

Why aren't names good enough?

1. People

It is not necessarily enough to have a name, since even a relatively unusual combination of names might easily not be entirely unique from a worldwide or even universal perspective: at the basic level, John Steven Smith might be unique in a place called Barton but even if you cross-reference these references, two people with the same name could easily be confused, for example if there are several possible places called Barton.

My own name, Talat Zafar Chaudhri, might appear to be more unique until you realise that these are all fairly common names in the Indian subcontinent and thus in the Indo-Pakistani diaspora, so it is reasonably possible or even fairly likely that another named individual exists with this particular choice of spelling (of which others may exist). I am also Talat Chaudhri, T. Chaudhri, T Chaudhri, T.Z. Chaudhri, TZ Chaudhri and similar variations (with or without spaces and punctuation) that might make it harder to decide which individuals to reconcile as a single individual, especially by machine processing. At least I do not vary the spelling of my surname, but some people may, especially in cases such as my own where other transliterations could be possible: for example, my father previously used the spelling Chaudhry and many others such as Chaudry, Chowdhary and Chowdhuri are equally possible. I understand when companies misspell it, but a computer might not be sure if these were definitely the same person, even if it went to the lengths of calculating a probability for this.

Moreover, people change personal titles (e.g. I have been both a Mr and a Dr and I am occasionally still referred to as the former by companies that do not allow for the latter option); they have multiple, changing work roles and work places, and may be known in multiple contexts, e.g. work, social, voluntary roles and similar. At work, one may have additional roles in various professional bodies, so it may not be apparent who is who. Two people might have the same name in a large professional group, e.g. physicists, and may even produce outputs related to the same subject. Who owns which ones? This is a particular issue for electronically available outputs on the Internet, e.g. publications, educational resources, audio, visual or audiovisual resources and so on.

2. Organisations

The same issue arises for organisations. Can we be sure that a Board of Licencing Control is unique? No. Perhaps it is merely another spelling for the Board of Licensing Control but using a different spelling? What if one, but not all, of these were re-named as Burundian Licencing Control? What if the Board of Licencing Control merged with the Department for Regulatory Affairs under either of these names, a combination, or an entirely new name, yet continued their association with the assets of the originals. De-mergers are likewise possible, and may present issues of uncertain ownership of resources.

Perhaps there are organisations with this name in several countries but serving utterly different purposes, and perhaps one is merely one possible translation of a term into English but used natively in another language. Historical names have been used in multiple contexts that may still be valid, e.g. the Irish Volunteers, and these might need to be kept clearly separate from each other. Conversely, there are also organisations that have multiple names or forms of names, whether in one language or in multiple languages or during their history, e.g. Óglaigh na hÉireann is Irish for both the terrorist Irish Republican Army (IRA) and most of its subsequent splinter groups but is also, however, an acceptable name, for historical reasons, for the Defence Forces of the Republic of Ireland, and previously just the Irish Army (an tArm) that now forms a part of it. These are clearly not the same and must be distinguished. It must be also noted that typographical constraints and character encodings will lead to yet more duplicate forms.

Isn't this bigger than the question of unique identification?

Yes, the need for complex metadata to express these things can go far beyond merely identifying resources in a unique manner. However, before one can even start thinking about complex descriptive and relational metadata, one first has to be clear which resource is mentioned: hence the first step must be unique identification of what it is we are talking about. Only once we have done that can we feel reasonably confident about talking about how resources relate to one another and how they may have changed over time.

Overall, there is an ever increasing need to make clear what is meant, as more and more things and agents have on-line identities that need to be distinguished, whether this is as an owner of resources or as a referrant within a resource, e.g. the subject of the resource in a particular context, and even of the role played and the relationship to other resources or agents, perhaps in a specific time period. Information models can quickly become extremely complex, and this is certainly true where identity is concerned.

What is an identifier?

In concept, an identifier is similar in its basic concept to a name. At its most basic, an identifier in the context of an information system is a token (usually a number or a string of characters) used to refer to an entity (anything which can be referred to). Identifiers are fundamental to most, if not all, information systems. As the global network of information systems evolves, identifiers take on a greater significance. And as the Web becomes more 'machine readable', it becomes vital for all organisations who publish Internet resources to adopt well-managed strategies for creating, maintaining and consistently using identifiers to refer to those assets it cares about.

What are unique identifiers?

The simple answer is that this is the only way to avoid misidentification confidently, and therefore prevent any errors about ownership or rights over resources that might arise, as well as making sure that large bodies of resources contain reliable information generally.

The fundamental question is whether the identifier or token that has been chosen is unique and how best to ensure this. Some identifiers are so complex that mathematical probability makes them effectively unique in the universe, notably UUIDs. In essence, a UUID is no more than a complex numerical token: it is only additional complexity (and thus uniqueness) that it offers compared to, for example, a running number. Others like names can only be distinguished unambiguously by making a series of statements about which names are considered equivalent, which contexts (e.g. a person's work or town) are valid, and so on, where a number of relationships have to be attached to a particular identifier and checked in order to reach an acceptable level of uniqueness and to eliminate any mistaken connections with resources that might be similar in name or perhaps also in other respects by chance.

The problem with UUIDs is that, while the chances of them failing to be unique are, to all practical purposes, non-existent, it is not very clear from a UUID alone what the nature of that resource is. It may be machine-readable but it says nothing about who generated that identifier and when, or which other identifiers might exist for the same resource in different systems that also generated an identifier for the same resource. Consequently, the need to associate other metadata with any complex number or other similar token remains (including but not limited to UUIDs). Simply, no single token can be sufficient for any complex purpose and, at the very least, an electronic or physical resource must be referenced for the token to have any useful meaning at all.

This is effectively that a URL is: another type of token. While I will not go into the whole discussion about URLs and URNs as sub-types of URIs, it is worth noting that, in many quarters, the term URL is no longer preferred despite it being the most commonly used in practice. In strict terms, there is a clear difference: while a URI is usually resolvable to an electronic resource, which may be either a description of a physical or electronic resource or may be an electronic resource itself, there is technically no requirement that a URI should be resolvable, i.e. that all it needs to be is a token that doesn't necessarily have to represent an address that actually delivers a resource. However, it is usual to use the HTTP scheme, which is designed for delivering such a resource, so it would be somewhat eccentric and misleading if one were deliberately to choose an ostensibly resolvable syntax that does not in fact resolve. In effect, virtually all such URIs are also URLs (unless a resource has become unavailable and link rot has set in), since the latter must locate the resource or representation of it: this is inherently useful. Any URI that resolves, i.e. URL, will be effectively unique within the standard Domain Name System (DNS). As a result, there is no absolute need for UUIDs in many contexts, since a sufficiently unique and practical token already exists in the URI. Any unique but arbitrary token serves the core purpose here.

Aren't identifiers really just names?

Yes and no. Names are intrinsically arbitrary too when they are first given. However, they are identifiable on a number of levels from a human perspective. In addition to a combination of names belonging to one or more particular linguistic and/or ethnic origins and usually identifying gender, they quickly become associated with a particular person, so their use in uniquely identifying that person within a given context become central to maintaining the person's reputation in whatever they do. This is, for example, particularly important to academics in Higher Education. In modern times, this name resolution needs to be done globally wherever the Internet is the context, whereas previously it would have been possible to use fewer additional pieces of information in more restricted contexts (e.g. a village, a country etc), depending on the purpose. These different contexts still co-exist but it is now necessary to provide as many as possible, since one cannot control or predict why the information is being requested in each instance on a global system such as the Internet.

How does this affect Higher and Further Education?

Increasing numbers of professionals and the bodies that they work for and represent need to describe their resources on the Internet, whether those are in themselves electronic resources, whether they are descriptions of electronic or physical resources (metadata), or whether they are other representations of physical resources, perhaps in addition to themselves being electronic resources (e.g. photographs). This is a particularly pressing issue in Higher Education and, to an increasing extent, in Further Education. Academic outputs may include publications, educational resources, visual, audio and audiovisual resources and so on. Perhaps the best known is the issue of scholarly publications, partly through the rise of the Open Access movement to make such resources freely available.

There are already a range of identifiers for academics and related professional university staff. One of the problems is that these are created for specific purposes that only cover whichever subset of staff is relevant to those purposes. For example, HESA keeps records that contain a HESA number for academic staff, which means that at least those who have published academic outputs will have such a number. Another number called the HUSID number is maintained for students, since tracking academic careers from student to staff is one important concern for HESA. Many academics in relevant fields may have ISNI numbers, which are used widely in the media content industries. Many academics will have one or more professional staff pages, including within repositories and Current Research Information Systems (CRIS), each with a URI, not to mention OpenIDs and URIs associated with Web services which they use professionally and/or privately, e.g. LinkedIn, Academic.edu, Facebook, Twitter and so on.

Here are some examples belonging to Brian Kelly of UKOLN:

The problem is that the coverage of these numbers is not universal within the HE sector, and there is no single recognised authority or other agreement to prevent and resolve conflicts where information is not consistent between two or more information sources.

At present, the JISC are trying to solve this through the Unique Identifiers Task and Finish Group, which also includes representatives of HESA, HEFCE, the various Research Councils in the UK and UKOLN. The preferred solution is currently the ORCID academic identifier, which is being developed internationally with publishers, with a great deal of input from the United States in particular.

In order to succeed, any such identifier will need international penetration of the higher education sector, since academics will not use it unless it delivers the sorts of interoperability benefits that make their work easier and become integrated into the recognised systems required of them by funders and publishers in the course of their work. Since students and academics change roles and institutions, this needs to be recognised and outputs properly allocated to institutions and departments, which may themselves change identities, merge and de-merge over time.

While institutions will need to reduce the workload on academics by bulk loading information about staff, since the main incentive to use the system is that every academic has a record, there is also an issue about control. Should academics have the ability to alter their records at will? Are assertions automatically trusted or does a particular record for an academic's time at an institution need to be verified by that trusted body? Who should maintain a list of trusted bodies who can back up assertions? How will this effort be funded sustainably? It becomes clear that some of these points are central structural concerns whereas others may cover only fringe issues such as avoiding deliberate falsification, which may be rare.

Proprietary academic identifiers

There are also a number of proprietary identifiers associated with different commercial services related to electronic publishing and related academic service industries. Thomson Reuters and Elsevier provide identities for individuals and organisations as part of their bibliographic and academic services; similarly, search services such as Google Scholar (see the study in this blog post) and Microsoft Academic Search have also started to offer identifiers (see this blog post). There may be privacy issues, for example in Google and Microsoft publicly surfacing information about researchers without explicit consent: while this information might have been suitable for the limited purpose of publication, academics may not have intended for it to be synthesised into a single, public description of their personal details available to all.

Some of these services introduce new problems, since their primary purpose is commercial and it is often less of a priority to deal with the internal issues facing academic institutions unless that impacts significantly on the ability to make commercial profit. These may be resolved over time or be reintroduced as services change and compete: the academic has little or no control over the effects of commercial decisions upon their work. For example, Microsoft Academic Search often misrepresents outputs as belonging to similarly named individuals (thus is currently failing at unique identification) and, by default, requires the manual input of researchers to edit out errors and take a proactive approach towards managing the information about themselves. This brings the overall quality of data into question: for large-scale statistical purposes, this could be tolerable, depending on the degree of error; however, for academic citations and reporting purposes such as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), it would not be acceptable to use this data without further refinement, which would most likely remain a long, manual process.

Software and services

Any software application layer, whether operated by commercial companies, higher educational institutions, funders or governmental bodies, needs to be maintained. If information is harvested or processed automatically, it needs to be clear who corrects information where errors are found and what the resources are for academics to contact individuals with the time and effort available to improve the data as part of their work. In the case of commercial organisations, this is usually unclear and may change. There is no guarantee that the commercial reason for providing services will continue over time, unlike in most cases in the public sector within Higher Education. Coverage of such commercial services is often geared towards institutions rather than individuals: for example, Google Scholar requires registration using a valid university email address that it recognises, which would exclude private scholars and perhaps some retired staff who produce research.

The Web of Things

It has already been mentioned that electronic descriptions or other representations of physical objects may be found on the internet, including written descriptions, pictures, geographical locations, dimensions and so on. It is even possible to describe physical objects that were extant but are now historical, or which have moved or whose location is now unknown, referencing comparable objects and linking these descriptions with other resources that are related. In each case, the nature of the relationship, relevant agents who may have been responsible for it, and when it was valid can be described in metadata.

This opens the way for the Web of Things, a term used to describe that part of the Semantic Web that covers physical resources as opposed to, or as well as, purely electronic ones. Some authorities use the term to mean physical objects with miniaturised electronic devices to enable them to be located, whereas others merely mean any physical object that is described in a record on the Web. It may be argued that all electronic resources have relationships to physical ones, even if that is only with regard to authorship and subject. The Resource Description Framework (RDF) provides a means to describe these relationships and transmit information about them in ways readable to humans and machines. Although these are usually expressed as triples, where two things are described with a relationship between them, metadata structures such as the Common European Research Information Framework (CERIF) can add link tables that give far more detailed information about the relationships themselves. All of this can be made available as Linked Data and surfaced in many software applications on the Web.

The Semantic Web is often seen as a utopian view of a future where no electronic resources will be published without complex information being provided or automatically generated about its origins. The reality is that manual entry of information is generally very limited unless it serves the purposes of the person entering it, and this cannot be relied upon as an approach to ensuring large-scale, consistent metadata on a sufficient scale for the Semantic Web to work. Technology has in some cases improved to the extent that geographical and technical information is now automatically produced, for example in digital cameras and in mobile phones able to record GPS coordinates.

However, the effort and cost required to catalogue the entire physical world and the extent to which this is even possible is highly doubtful. Where the Semantic Web could be useful is within particular large bodies of data, for example experimental scientific data, publications and so on. In the case of the Web of Things, this could include art collections, photography, archaelogical information, the locations of public institutions and many more. For all of these purposes, it will be necessary to provide unique identifiers for increasingly large numbers of resources, including things and agents, in order to provide complex metadata about them.

Education in the wider world

It has perhaps not been sufficiently investigated how unique identifiers for researchers and other staff in Higher Education will fit into the wider question of unique identification on the Web. Relevant purposes might be:

(1) commercial, for example the identification of companies and individuals owning the rights to photos, music, video or publications, particularly legacy resources of ongoing commercial value in terms of royalties and performance licencing.

(2) governmental, for example biometric information about people, used in border controls, crime prevention and citizenship contexts; or about public or private organisations such as charities, political groups of interest to law enforcement etc. Information about individuals, in particular, may be subject to privacy laws, which will vary between jurisdications.

It is clear that there are interfaces between the various agents and outputs of academic institutions and many other purposes, notably those commercial and governmental activities already described. For example, a foreign student or member of staff seeking a work permit will require institutions and governmental bodies to use personal and citizenship information co-operatively, which will be linked to their academic identity in the course of their work at the institution. Some of this information will be private and some public, so there is an issue about who can see which parts of a particular corpus of Linked Data, requiring authentication protocols and systems.

The extent to which consistency of approach between HE institutions and other sectors and contexts can ever be ensured is moot, since there is of course no single international authority and because any single metadata solution that tried to cover so many diverse purposes would be fatally unwieldy. How different, flexible approaches can be understood by machine processing is perhaps the technological key to how well the Semantic Web will answer these questions in future, both within Higher Education and beyond.

Researcher ID Task and Finish Group

Talat Chaudhri — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:42:00 +0000

The first meeting of the Researcher Identifiers Task and Finish Group was highly successful and productive because it kept a tight focus on developing an achievable, clearly articulated body of work and developing a process and timescale for the series of meetings that will inform this process and the commissioning and delivery of the reports that the discussions will continue to inform, round until January 2012.

The aim of the first meeting was to agree set of recommendations and collective requirements for Researcher IDs, decide on who else should form a part of future discussions, and decide on the precise scope and limits that the discussions and commissioned work should stay within. At the end of the discussions and after the conclusions of the reports and consultations, it is intended that the JISC should be in a position to commission a number of clearly defined pieces of work to begin implementation of the recommendations of the group.

The first decision was that only researcher identifiers, not institutional identifiers as well, should be considered as part of this work. The initial discussion reached agreement that, although crucial to many or most areas of research information management, the scope had to remain tighter during the limited time frame of these meetings in order to achieve concrete results rapidly. The question of when a person becomes a researcher for the purposes of the many and varied business processes in the UK HE sector is a complex one, and there was considerable discussion around this point. It was agreed that the work needed to concentrate specifically on the UK HE research information management regime, although it needed to be informed by international developments where that was relevant and appropriate to the UK context.

Many different business processes within universities in the UK HE sector were discussed, including but not limited to pre- and post-award grant management, research reporting, publications management, human resources for research and teaching, student monitoring including postgraduate records, statutory requirements such as Freedom of Information, league tables and government targets, and government open data initiatives. The tension between the needs and professional preferences of the researcher in maintaining control over their information and those of the institution in effectively carrying out these processes across multiple disciplines and departments at a managed, institutional level was a recurring theme in the discussions.

There was a focus on the need for technical interoperability with existing systems, in particular on linked data initiatives, especially where that concerns research data sets. The discussion identified several well known researcher ID schemes such as ORCID, HESA IDs and the 16 digit ISNI number. It was agreed that all of these discussions between stakeholders should be documented as a starting point. Suggestions were taken for which stakeholders were not yet present and who should therefore be invited, and it was agreed in particular that HEFCE needed to be represented in some way, whether or not they would actually commit senior staff time to be represented at the meetings directly. It was also suggested that a representative of the Wellcome Trust could be invited.

In summary, Neil Jacobs stated the overall modus operandi and aims of the group as follows:

The group will meet 5-6 times to develop recommendations.
All apart from the first and last meetings will be virtual meetings using Skype, telephone conference or an alternative technology if appropriate.
The dates of these meetings were to be set out at the end of the meeting (see below), following the discussions about the recommended work packages.
The group will be presented with pre-existing reports, e.g. ORCID and the Names Project, and these groups will be continuously consulted on the basis of feedback from the meetings, in a manner to be established as the need arises. For example, there will be a workshop at the end of the month to outline opportunities in identity management, from which a short briefing will be delivered to the group.
The stakeholders will faciliate discussion and provide information to the group.
Case studies will be used to map out the individual pieces of work that might be done to inform about options, risks, benefits in setting up an identifier infrastructure.
At the end of 6 months the recommendations that can be implemented on the basis of these discussions will be in place.
The final report in January 2011 will take a longer term view: there is no expectation that the infrastructure itself will be in place by then. This will be part of subsequent work and will come out of the recommendations that will be in place by then.

David Flanders then gave a brief summary of developments in the Names Project project, followed by brief summaries given by Brian Kelly of the current state of the ORCID project, and the work on the Technical Foundations (Talat Chaudhri) and ISKB (Thom Bunting) web sites, services and processes being developed by UKOLN staff.

The rest of the meeting was largely devoted to focussed discussions of the required nature and scope of the work packages that had been suggested in the actions from the discussions in the preceding half of the meeting, for which the group separated into two groups and then came back together to discuss and synthesise their findings.

In summary, Neil Jacobs reiterated the need to remain aware of milestones outside of this work, e.g. the REF outline in July 2011 and the final specification in January 2012, as well as JES milestones, in order to avoid being caught out by those developments.The meeting was happy with the provisional shape of the work packages recommended to the JISC for commissioning in order to inform the ongoing series of meetings. Josh Brown agreed to prepare a timeline, and that he, Neil Jacobs and David Flanders will report back at the next meeting once these actions have been carried out.

Finally, dates were agreed for the entire series of meetings. Very considerable progress was made during the meeting in a very short space of time, which was hard but rewarding work that proceeded from an initial position of quite general and all-encompassing discussions in the the area of research management and unique identifiers to a clear, scoped and planned series of provisional work packages and processes for their co-ordination with the ongoing meetings of the group.