1. VRE Use of Standards Jim Farmer eReSS VRE Programme Meeting
21-22 June 2007

2. Context
The eReSS Project analyzed the use of standards and specifications in the 15 VRE1 projects. This lists areas where different projects use different standards or specifications for similar functionality. The analysis is based on project plans and early reports and interviews conducted by the eReSS Consortium.
The purpose is to consider whether interoperability could be improved within the limits of needed functionality and available resources.

3. Definitions (as used here)
Organizations and people write specifications
Use determines a standard
Interoperability, as interpreted by users, is “plug and play”—no additional knowledge of technology is required.
A need for “out of band agreements” prevents sufficient scale to become a standard

4. The Conundrum
Consumers choose technology on features, (complexity wins) but …
Consumers judge technology based on early use (simplicity wins) and response to problems by the supplier’s call centre.

5. Observations
A VRE should support both primary and secondary researchers. This implies a federation of users with different roles.
To satisfy the features/usability conundrum, a framework/tools approach may be required (e.g. Eclipse, Sakai)

6. Areas of standardization
Framework
Authentication/authorization
Data storage, retrieval, and access
Middleware
Accessibility

7. Frameworks Projects used or considered: Sakai
JSR 168/WSRP compliant portals
Browsers
Web pages using HTML,XHTML 1.0, JSP
One project advised the framework should be WAI accessible, which limits choice and use

8. Authentication/Authorization
Federated authentication to meet the need for inter-institutional collaboration (Shibboleth v SAML v Liberty Alliance)
Protection is required for data (such as medical data)
Stored and in transit (Encryption: PKI)

9. Data Storage and Retrieval
Data repository (none used, several suggested)
(Discussed Fedora and DSpace; use of JSR 170 v OSID interface, use of WebDav)
Data access
Search tools
(Z39.50 v SRW v SRU + discipline specific)
(“Semantic Web” tools)

10. Data Storage and Retrieval
Data Definition/Description
(SQL, XML Schema, DTD; ontologies; implicitly by “workflow”)
Workflow services (including data transformation)
(WS-BPEL, WfML, others)

11. Middleware choices OMII (grid) Microsoft .net IBM/Oracle (WS* et al)
TCP/IP sockets

12. Some Issues
Is Microsoft software significant to researchers? (For example, choice of JSR 168 v. WSRP)
Which service oriented architecture (WS* v. Simple SOAP v. REST or “all of the above”)

13. Thank you eReSS eResearch Specifications and Standards