Access to the feature articles. This page is intended for printing purposes. Note that the internal links to references will not work correctly.
Duncan Pemberton and David Nichols provide an overview of the DEBORA (Digital Access to Books of the Renaissance) project, part of the Telematics for Libraries programme. The project aims to investigate the costs involved in the "chain of production" during the creation of electronic versions of rare 16th century books. The project's scope allows for exploration into the construction of an interactive document delivery system based on the Java2 software platform that allows collaborative functionality (to support groups of users) to be added to the client. Extensive usability trials will be undertaken looking at the presentation of digitised books to a cross-section of history scholars (being the intended end users of the system).
The DEBORA (Digital accEss to BOoks of the RenAissance) Project [1] is funded by the EU Telematics for Libraries programme (project no. 5608) [2]. The aim is to provide public access to rare 16th Century literary resources, currently inaccessible for reasons of preservation, and in doing so to:
To fulfil these general aims the project consists of a number of interconnected threads of work:
The digitised document collection will consist of a number of specially selected 16th Century books chosen to appeal to a wide-ranging and diverse audience. Due to the need for conservation, the original printed works are normally only available for consultation to a small number of experts. Having electronic versions of books available that were often previously physically stored in separate countries throughout Europe aids availability whilst also greatly increasing reader access to such important and sometimes under-utilised resources. The DEBORA project therefore brings these valuable documents to a wider audience through Internet based technologies. As a side effect we can also provide supplementary "value added functionality" to aid user work processes during document access.
At Lancaster we are primarily involved in the specification and production of a demonstration application (called the access client) that facilitates electronic document access. Along with our project partners, who oversee the scanning process and document storage server, the technical side of the project aims to produce a feature rich, fully functional and scaleable digital library solution. Eventually the final prototype will be deployed in a number of user trials at the various DEBORA library test sites.
Previously, without electronic intervention, such a scenario would be impossible to achieve due to the fragile nature of the documents, and the expense and inconvenience of travel to the libraries where these documents are stored. The delicate nature of the source material poses many problems for the digitisation process itself. Our project partners will examine these production issues and methods in detail. Their work will therefore involve looking into OCR technologies, image extraction and page enhancement technologies, whilst optimising the digitisation process to make it feasible to automate the procedure so that a large number of works can be rapidly and cost effectively produced. Of course the wider the appeal of the corpus the increased interest from potential users, therefore our project partners have undertaken a careful selection process to maximise potential user group interest in the project. The selected corpus of works from our partner libraries includes:
Digital library (DL) software should contain all the services that are provided in traditional libraries. In addition to these services a DL should also provide greater convenience to the user. This means fully exploiting the advantages brought about through using digital technology. We can enhance the users' experience of the digital library providing services that traditionally are not easily possible from paper based media. For example, image enhancement, and page zoom (magnification) to examine fine-detail, etc. It remains to be seen to what extent the target system users (i.e. historians) will accept electronic versions of documents.
The client access application will contain a number of CSCW features that are fully integrated into the viewing software to expand the useful functionality available to the user. Such functionality will be incorporated into the reading section of the tool with the basic aim of simplifying the user's work processes involved in accessing, and searching information contained in the digital library. We therefore aim to prototype some novel cooperative work functionality [3] designed to enhance the experience of reading renaissance documents in an “on-line” scenario. This work builds on the work previously done at Lancaster on the Ariadne project [4] and [5].
We also note that uncontrolled addition of functionality can lead to an overhead on the usability of software. We therefore intend to apply a rapid multi-iteration prototyping based software process to the client's development. This will help to ensure that we achieve the fine balance between functionality and ease of use by targeting and tailoring functionality to specific user requirements, and requests.
 |
| Figure 1: An Early Pre-Release Prototype Of The DEBORA Client Application (Note: click on image to view enlarged copy) |
Included in the software (an early version of which can be seen in Figure 1) will be a rich number of annotation tools. For example, annotation areas can be added to pages with "ToolTip" [footnote 1] based annotation displays within the DEBORA client page viewer. This allows users to quickly view their annotations without having to leave the page that they are currently studying. We also aim to make these annotation methods as non-invasive on the page as possible to avoid interfering in the user's view of the page contents. Highlighting tools are also available to mark documents for further reference. Document annotations, and bookmarks may be shared with others or kept private depending upon their intended use and scope. In a DL users can initiate the addition of content in a variety of different ways and with different audiences [6]. Within DEBORA we intend to use the client software to explore the issues surrounding annotation in DLs.
Furthermore, we intend to introduce tools that will allow the documents to be studied in fine detail without loss of image quality. Prototype image display preference controls are therefore available to allow the user to set their preferred contrast and brightness of the displayed image. A dynamic filter is available for image sharpening to improve crispness at extreme magnification factors. These controls can also help to correct badly scanned images.
The features of the DEBORA client application fall into a number of distinct categories of functionality:
This functionality has been built into a single MDI [footnote 2] style user interface that allows easy access to all client features in an intuitive manner for reasonably competent computer users. As the software is built in Java [7] the client binary is also functional without change across many computing platforms. The functionality of the client is summarised in detail in the following section.
The DEBORA client will therefore look at a number of key technology areas including:
Wherever possible we intend to make use of defined standards during the building of the associated software system. This can be initially seen in our adoption of Z39.50 for search, query-response and document retrieval. Our French project partners at the University of Lyon are currently investigating the extension of the MARC [9] metadata standard to accommodate the requirements of cataloguing books of the 16th Century.
DEBORA is co-ordinated from the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Sciences de L'information et des Bibliothèques (ENSSIB) in Lyon, France. The partners involved in the DEBORA project reflect the international nature of creating such a digital library system. The DEBORA client software will be evaluated across a number of international test sites. Feedback from the initial user trails will help to evolve the prototype to meet user requirements. Consequently the functionality outlined in this article will evolve alongside our greater understanding of user needs.
Details of the project partners and test sites are available on the DEBORA web site at Lancaster [1].
The DEBORA project aims to make rare 16th century books available to a wide range of users. By constructing the software and implementing a defined “production chain” for digital documents we aim to examine the time and cost constraints, and hence the feasibility of such an approach for constructing a large rare document digital library. The use of cutting-edge software and imaging technology will be investigated to back up the digital library construction process. User trials for novel CSCW based functionality will help improve and evaluate the software provided for the system.
If you have any comments on this article, please contact the editors (exploit-editor@ukoln.ac.uk), or the report authors (pemberto@comp.lancs.ac.uk and dmn@comp.lancs.ac.uk).
Duncan Pemberton and David Nichols
Cooperative Systems Engineering Group
Computing Department
Lancaster University
LA1 4YR
Email: pemberto@comp.lancs.ac.uk or dmn@comp.lancs.ac.uk
Dr. Duncan Pemberton, Research Associate on the DEBORA project in the Department of Computing at Lancaster University, U.K., responsible for technical software development of the DEBORA Java client, and server integration.
Dr. David Nichols, Research associate & teaching fellow, working on the DEBORA project in the Computing Department, Lancaster University.
 |
For citation purposes:
Pemberton, D. and Nichols, D., "DEBORA - Digital Access to Books of the Renaissance",
Exploit Interactive, issue 3, October 1999.
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/debora/>
Richard N Tucker describes MIRACLE (the Music and Information Resources Assisted Computer Library Exchange) - a project to create a world wide virtual library of music braille.
The conversion of text to braille is, even with modern computers, much more expensive than the cost of the original text. Converting printed music into a form that can be read by visually impaired musicians can cost as much as ten times more than text conversion. It makes sense then to share that effort amongst the music braille producers around the world. The MIRACLE project [1] is building the basis on which to do just that.
Even before Louis Braille had perfected his system of representing letters by using six raised dots, there had been experiments to represent printed music in a form that can be read by blind musicians. These attempted to replicate the printed page in various raised forms, but it proved to be too difficult to read - and also took a lot of room on the page. After the best part of a century of experiments the linear succession of raised braille dots remains the only successful method of allowing visually impaired musicians to read scores. There is a recently developed method known as spoken music, which will be dealt with later in this paper.
Why should a blind musician want to read music? Can't they simply listen to a recording and play it? We all know that blind people develop other senses such as audio perception and memory; don't they? While most do have to rely on memory more than sighted people, the idea of super-senses is a bit of a myth. Could you listen to a complex piano piece and guarantee to hear all the notes in all the chords? In any case why should you have to learn someone else's interpretation rather than learn what the composer wrote? Blind musicians need to be able to read all the notes and their values, the expression marks and directions, just as we do as sighted readers. The major difference is that when we look at a piece of printed music we see all the elements simultaneously. The graphic spatial relationships of the elements on the page are part of the experience.
But braille can only present information in a series of cells with a combination of six dots in a linear stream. There have therefore to be rules about the order in which all the information is presented. Because combinations of cells are required to represent the information, further rules have to be agreed between the producing agencies of this world. There is an agreement formed within the World Blind Union and published as the "New International Handbook of Braille Music Notation" [2]. Sixteen countries put their names to this set of rules and it is in effect a world standard. However, because braille music transcribers are constantly coming against musical figures or types of music which have not been previously brailled there has also to be a mechanism whereby new proposals are circulated to the major producers. The proposals are checked against current practice and suggestions made for alternatives if the proposal is too close to another piece of coding. Because of the relatively small number of producing units, it is possible to secure agreements on new codings within a short period.
All of this is to demonstrate that there is an active world of braille music producers who have been co-operating with each other for a long time. In addition there a large number of smaller institutions, schools and music academies where music is brailled for individual users and small collections built up. There is no real oversight of the methods used by these smaller producers - some are known to be using presentation methods that were rejected more than 45 years ago.
So if there is an international system of coding music braille and taking into account that we can all read each other's music, then there are no problems in working together? Wrong! It ought to be possible to read music braille no matter where it has been produced. But that would be to underestimate Man's ingenuity and the genuine complexities of printed music. Because music braille notation was developed in different countries and because different types of music pose different problems, different methods of presenting the music on the page have been introduced.
Where there is only one melody line the representation can be reasonably linear. When one considers piano or organ music where at least two lines of music have to be read simultaneously, there are problems in presenting this as a single linear stream of information. Some present one bar of one hand and then one bar of the other; some present section by section (but then there are different ideas about the length of a section).
This is definitely not the place to go into the details of brailling. That can be better left to the specialists. It is only necessary to realise that a music braille version of a piece of music, using standard codes which can be read by any proficient reader, may in fact be difficult because the only edition available is in an unfamiliar layout format. Most people are, when the need arises, able to overcome the differences in layout. It is very difficult to standardise these formats. Different music demands different presentation. One reader is used to "section by section" another prefers "bar over bar". In principle a music piece is not normally brailled again because a reader prefers another format.
In 1989 the World Blind Union Music Braille Committee decided that it was time to up-date the existing manual and to take steps to bring the major libraries together. A conference held in 1990 lead to the formation of a small consortium; SVB (Amsterdam) [3], SBS (Zurich) [4], ONCE (Spain) [51]], and the RNIB (UK) [6]. Together these four music braille libraries decided to build a central catalogue representing their holdings.
As anyone who has been involved in constructing a Union Catalogue will know, there are lots of things that have to be agreed upon. Which rules, which formats, which authority files? It was a natural decision that none of the participating libraries would be expected to alter their own catalogue. A new central catalogue would be created which showed not only the items completed but also items in preparation (since it may take weeks or months to complete an item) and items for which a claim has been made. These last two items, unusual in library catalogues, are to reduce the risk of two libraries starting to produce the same item.
The libraries worked together over a period of nearly six years. During that time they agreed on detailed cataloguing rules, based on AACR2 and ISBD, using Smiraglia Rules [7] and the Groves New International Dictionary of Music and Musicians [8] as the authority file. Agreement was reached on both the ink-print entry and the braille description. Software was developed for the central catalogue and in some measure for automatically transferring entries from the partner libraries into the central catalogue. Automated thesauri were developed to cope with alternative titles and such fun things as the transliteration of foreign (e.g. Russian) names. One short paragraph is much easier than all the work that went into achieving all that. That is not to suggest that there were any specific difficulties. It just took a lot of work on the part of the four libraries, especially the staff of the SVB Music Department.
During the same period the SVB was busy with projects under the Libraries Programme. One day while working on the transfer of documents as part of the EXLIB project [9], the suggestion was thrown on the table that if we could access catalogues and document databases then it ought to be possible to do the same for printed music. Given that we thought that all sheet music was set in digital files, then it ought to be easy to develop a system. The reality was very different but the CANTATE project [10] did develop a system which allowed remote searching of distributed catalogues, viewing selected items picked up automatically from distributed databases and then permitting downloading into the users terminal. The system also coped with automatic payments and accounting.
With the publication of the New International Manual of Braille Music Notation and the completion of the CANTATE project, it was natural to look for ways in which the work of the International Braille Music Catalogue (as it was then called) and the CANTATE system could be brought together. Given that the four participating libraries had got so far it seemed that the incentive of a part funded project would pull the whole thing together.
The basic idea is simple. Blind musicians around the world need Braille music. Music is sufficiently international to cross borders. Braille music is very expensive to produce, therefore anything that will reduce the amount of duplication is to be desired. It makes sense then to set up a system in which all music braille libraries can know what the other libraries have in stock and are producing. They should then be able to get the braille from each other at rates that are substantially less than producing the piece all over again. Where pieces are held as digital files it should be possible to send these to each other over the Internet.
A consortium was formed by the four original libraries, together with Shylock Progetti of Venice who had developed the CANTATE software. Two associate partners joined these partners, the Danish Library for the Blind and Stamperia Braille of Florence. A project proposal was submitted to the Libraries Programme of the TAP Programme Phase 4 and was eventually accepted.
The project began in January 1999 and is planned to run for two years. With the encouragement of the European Commission, though without any further subsidy, corresponding members have been attracted to the project. Currently these are in Russia, Canada, the USA and South Africa. Though they are not expected to travel to the meetings they can influence the project by commenting on all drafts and sending in their contributions to discussions. However their greatest contribution is expected later in the project when the trials begin later in the year.
Now the partners are working on the new interfaces and the rebuilding of the catalogue and database. Some braille, which has existed for a long time only on paper, is being scanned and converted to digital braille files, making them available to a wider audience. The project is thus about one third of the way towards the MIRACLE system. This must be fully operational by the end of 1999 for testing.
While all this work has been going on there have been other developments which can be incorporated into the MIRACLE system. The SVB has developed a system whereby music is spoken onto tape under the same rules as the braille notation. A learner hears a short piece of the music, which is then read (in all its details) and played once more. A more advanced version of what is now called Spoken Music is now in its last stages of testing. Using the file which set the printed music (with some adaptation) and synthetic speech, a Spoken Music file can now be produced in any language for which there is synthetic speech software. Such software, producing a digital file which can easily be sent to other libraries is a major breakthrough for visually impaired musicians who cannot read braille notation and yet need to read written scores. Given the ageing population there are likely to be more people becoming visually impaired. There is no reason why those that read music should be cut off from it.
Using commercial software some of the libraries are producing large letter music. This is not simply enlarging the page to assist the partially sighted. That tends to produce a score that is difficult to manipulate. In the large letter version the software enlarges the music staff within the standard page size turning a piece with, say, six bars to a line into one with as few as one to a line. The copy can be tailored to the needs of individual clients.
Because of the specialised nature of the materials and the particular needs of the target audience, MIRACLE may not be of direct interest to other library users. On the other hand it offers an example of co-operation which will come as near to creating a worldwide virtual library, as one is likely to find for some time. Music, both the printed notes and the recorded sound, is becoming increasingly digital. In the commercial world transfer of music directly to end-users is advancing rapidly. The music library world is lagging a long way behind these developments and in some ways is in danger of being overtaken by commercial interests [11]. Out of need, the sector of libraries for the blind may be showing the rest one possible way forward through co-operation.
The astute reader may have noticed that in all this talk of transferring digital files, no mention has been made of copyright. It hasn't been ignored. The production of a braille music file requires the purchase of the original music. Then comes a laborious and skilled process, requiring good musical knowledge, to produce the braille. There are a couple of programmes that have made it possible to automate music braille from single line melodies. These are not yet successful with complex music. There is a new piece of Russian software almost ready for release, which will make the manual input faster easier and more accurate. Full automation is not yet here. The thought that someone might get hold of a music braille file and convert it back to an illegal copy of the printed music is ludicrous.
Both the WIPO and European Parliament copyright proposals make exceptions allowing the conversion to other formats for people with disabilities. In any case if a blind person is reading braille music there is usually at least one other person who has had to buy a printed copy, so the publishers win.
Richard N. Tucker
Project Co-ordinator
The FORCE Foundation
The Hague
URL: <http://www.f-force.nl/>
Email: dtucker@f-force.nl
Tel: +31 70 3097698
Richard Neil Tucker (b 1942) Graduated in English and Philosophy (Liverpool), postgraduate study in Radio Film and Television (Bristol) where he taught film and television (1967-70).
Senior Assistant Director, Scottish Film Council (1970-75). Senior Assistant Director , Scottish Council for Educational Technology (1975-84). Director Educational and Information Technology, The Netherlands Institute for Audio-visual Media (1984-89). Director, Interactive Learning Services (1990 - 92). Head of Projects Department, SVB (1992-98). Deputy Director, FORCE Foundation (1998 - )
Involved in library matters since 1970 as a member of the LA/NCET non-book media cataloguing rules committee. Lead several library projects in SCET and was responsible for the Resource Centres in Schools project in Scotland. Has written books and articles on Resource Centres, multi-media in education, interactive media. Conducted a number of projects and consultancies for UNESCO. Since 1990 has lead or been involved in several projects under the European Commission's Libraries Programme.
For citation purposes:
Richard Neil Tucker, "The MIRACLE and the blind musician",
Exploit Interactive, issue 3, October 1999
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/miracle/>
Exploit Interactive goes EAST with TACIS. Monika Segbert travels from Luxembourg via Bruxelles and Manchester to Moscow and reports on the TACIS project which aims to create an Information System for the Russian State Library.
The Russian State Library was awarded the Tacis project in 1998 to help it modernise its library processes and services and to open up access to its invaluable collections to national and international audiences.
This National Library of all the former Soviet States, the largest library of Europe and the second largest in the world, holds over 42 million items. It acquires and stores national and foreign publications from the beginning of the book printing until today in 247 living and dead languages. It also contains an outstanding manuscript collection going back to the VIth century. The Library serves first of all the national and international research community, but also fulfils the functions of a public library, welcoming up to 5,000 users and circulating more than 35,000 items daily. It co-operates with libraries and institutions in more than 100 countries through its exchange programme and services about 2,500 borrowers all over the world.
UNESCO was instrumental in helping to draw up a Modernisation Plan in 1994 for this magnificent library. At the core of this plan is the introduction of information technologies into everyday practice. Other important elements of this far-reaching plan were the improvement of collection development and user services, staff training, restoration of buildings and preservation of valuable collections.
Ariane Iljon, then head of DG XIII-E4 Telematics for Libraries and a member of the board of the UNESCO Commission for the Russian State Library, in 1994 commissioned a feasibility study on automating the Russian State Library. This study resulted in a Project Definition Report: "Planning for Automation 1995 - 2000" which provided the basis for the Terms of Reference of the Tacis project TELRUS 9705 "Creating an Information System for the Russian State Library".
The project derives its budget from the Telecommunication Sector of the Tacis programme. Tacis fosters the development of links between EU countries and the States of the former Soviet Union and Mongolia. A key area of Tacis activity is the so-called Know-How transfer, carried out through policy advice, consultancy teams, training, studies, partnerships and also through pilot projects.
The project work plan lists 4 inter-related components:
The project started on 10th December 1998, with a budget of 1 MECU and is due to be completed by June 2000. The British Council in close collaboration with the partners in the Russian State Library leads a group of EU and Russian experts from the National Library of Scotland, Jouve SA France, EDS Germany and EDS-Lanit Moscow, Lund University Library Sweden, IPA (International Procurement Agency) Holland, IPF (Institute of Public Finance) London, Academy of Sciences, Moscow State University and the Russian National Library, St. Petersburg.
By June 2000 the following outcomes will be realised:
At the time of writing the open tender [1] for the integrated library software has been conducted and the evaluation of the bids has taken place. It was very encouraging to see the lively interest of both Western and Russian ILS suppliers in this project. The technical specifications of the required functionalities of the software were drawn up in many intensive discussions between RSL, local and EU experts, and the procurement expert of the project made sure that the final tender documents and evaluation procedure followed the Tacis rules very strictly. There will be a public announcement as to which supplier has won the tender as soon as the contract with the supplier has been signed.
One of the project's components is to retroconvert 10,000 cards from the 19th Century Catalogue of Russian books. Following an internal workshop on retroconversion, the RSL retroconversion team together with the project expert from Jouve formulated a Request for Proposal to two local suppliers to participate in a test-run, in order to determine quality and cost-value ratio of the two offers. Both suppliers scanned the same 500 cards of this catalogue (with many hand-written additions, fading ink, annotations on verso) and had to deliver MARC records in USMARC format for a certain deadline. This catalogue was chosen as being of special interest to national and international audiences, and was defined a priority in the UNESCO modernisation plan. The firm ProSoft, a Russian-German joint venture was chosen as a result of the test run. Subsequently ProSoft has concluded an agreement with the RSL to convert the whole of this catalogue - 600,000 records in total - as part of a joint business venture - this is a very positive result of the project activities, as the initial OPAC database will be enhanced by many more MARC records of this catalogue than the project budget could have afforded.
The conversion of existing machine readable cataloguing files will include the “Current Russian Books” acquired since May 1998, “Current Foreign Books” since January 1999, and the database of Dissertations and dissertation abstracts. The conversion has been tested with the results of the project USEMARCON, one of the research projects of DGXIII under its FP 3 Libraries Programme, and a time-table for the full conversion had been drawn up, culminating in the availability of the catalogue database for up-loading in the new integrated library system at the end of March 2000.
Business planning and marketing strategies - the non-IT but vital survival part of the project - focus on the new services or the enhancement of existing services resulting from the implementation of the pilot project. A two-day workshop on “Marketing and Pricing” was held with the RSL Business Planning Team in charge of these future income generating services. The workshop discussed marketing theories and the current situation pertaining to the marketing of library services in Russia, the promotion and pricing of services. Results from user surveys followed by focus group meetings form the basis of the marketing strategy. Marketing activities by other libraries in Russia are taken into account, as are performance indicators by other national libraries in Europe, as recorded in the LIBECON 2000 database, a research project under the FWP4 DGXIII Telematics for Libraries programme.
The network design and installation of the pilot project follows a careful plan of investigating the current situation, documenting the topology of the present network interaction, and of the technical conditions of current computer equipment and the server capacity, before defining the future local and global network topology. These findings, in connection with the information on the hardware requirements of the chosen library software, have provided a sound basis for the technical specification of the server and networking equipment, which have been the subject of a restricted tender. Work has now started to make the current network more manageable, creating a “star” topology with a high capacity switch in the centre and peripheral segments connected via multi-core optic cable.
Finally, training is a key component of the project, to ensure the functioning and sustainability of the pilot project. The process of defining a training programme for the RSL staff who will operate the pilot project has started with a skills’ audit, followed by the definition of the training needs and the identification of the content of the training and who will best deliver it. Training in the following areas will be required: systems engineers, network and database administration, data input operators, readers’ support. An overall training plan focuses on the creation of a cadre of 15 train the trainers, who will provide cascade training for other staff. A highlight of the training process will be two study tours, to the UK (23-30th October 1999) for senior RSL managers to libraries in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, to discuss policy and stragety, and to France (beginning of April 2000) for RSL middle management, to discuss methodology and processes. RSL staff will be meeting and exchanging views with many EU colleagues who have been involved in or are familiar with EC research projects pertaining to libraries.
There may be other opportunities to exploit existing research results as the project matures. Comments by expert readers of the Exploit Interactive web magazine will be most welcome to ensure that full advantage is taken of expertise created by the EC FWPs. An International End-of-Project Conference wil take place on 17-19th April 2000 which will not only present the lessons learnt from this project but will discuss findings of EU research relevant to the modernisation of Russian libraries and their imminent networking with the networked European library space.
Further Information on TACIS can be found at the TACIS web site at <http://www.rsl.ru/tacis/>
Monika Segbert
Team Leader
EU TACIS Project Office
Russian State Library
3/5 Vozdvizhenka
101000 Moscow
Russian Federation
Tel: +7 095 202 2570
Fax +7 095 200 2255
Email: monika@rsl.ru
URL: <http://www.rsl.ru/tacis/>
Daniel Dardailler discusses the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
"The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect."
-- Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
Millions of people use the Web daily for services related to their professional and personal interests. The Web provides information on every topic; it provides a vehicle for civic participation, commercial transactions, and education. It gives people access to world news, employment opportunities, and each other. Yet for many people with disabilities, it is currently difficult or impossible to access the Web.
As the Web rapidly displaces existing media, there is an increasing social expectation for its accessibility, and also a growing trend to require accessibility. This, combined with the realization of the benefits that a Design for All approach can bring to the Web at large (for instance, to mobile phone users with limited display screens), led the W3C to take on a leadership role and launch the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) program in 1997.
The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is hosted by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an international vendor-neutral consortium which develops technologies to promote the interoperability and evolution of the Web. The W3C coordinates the development of core Web protocols and data formats: HTML, XML, CSS, SMIL, etc. W3C provides a setting where WAI can bring together industry, disability organizations, accessibility researchers and government representatives to explore accessibility requirements and develop accessibility solutions.
The WAI focuses on making the Web accessible to existing and potential Web users who have disabilities. W3C's credibility further assists in ensuring the successful promotion of WAI guidelines, tools, and educational materials to a variety of audiences, including browser and authoring tool manufacturers and site developers.
The accessibility of the Web is worsening, due to increasing use of multimedia and advanced Web technologies, while awareness of the need for Web accessibility is only gradually increasing. Web accessibility barriers exist for many kinds of disabilities:
Over the past two years, WAI has developed guidelines and technical reference documents which have achieved international recognition. Awareness of WAI guidelines is spreading in both the public and private sectors. Emerging policy requirements for Web accessibility in various countries, combined with education and outreach efforts of WAI and collaborating organizations, should spur this awareness onward.
In addition to policy requirements for Web accessibility, many organizations have expressed interest in the carry-over benefits of accessibility for other users. Even those without disabilities benefit from many changes motivated by the needs of people with disabilities. When driving a car, for example, a driver may wish to browse the Web for information using a voice-based interface similar to that used by someone who is blind. This is sometimes referred to as "Design for All," or the curb-cut effect, where an accessibility-driven design such as a mini-ramp in a sidewalk curb allows easier passage for wheelchair users but is also favored by people pushing baby strollers, riding bikes, pulling luggage on wheels, etc. In particular, the mobile phone industry has expressed interest in the contributions of Web accessibility to greater usability for all.
WAI's approach to improving accessibility of the Web is based on the realization that several different things have to be done to reach the goal of Web accessibility, and as a result, WAI is organized to pursue accessibility of the Web through five complementary areas of work:
In order to meet the requirement of "globality" of Web Accessibility, W3C had combined its own membership funds plus those of various industries and governments in the creation of a WAI International Program Office. This office is funded through a cooperative agreement with the US National Science Foundation, which includes funds from the US Department of Education's National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Additional funding for the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative comes from the European Commission Telematics Applications Programme for Disabled and Elderly; from the Government of Canada's Industry Canada; from industry sponsors including IBM/Lotus, Microsoft, and Bell Atlantic; and contributors including NCR, WinWriters, and Massachusetts Association for the Blind.
The next sections provides an update on recent achievement in each of those WAI activities.
One of the first task of the WAI, and the reason why hosting it at W3C was so important, is to ensure that the foundation technologies of the Web enable its accessibility.
The Protocols and Formats Working Group (PFWG) maintains liaisons with over twenty W3C Working Groups. PFWG reviews and comments on charters, requirements documents, working drafts, last call drafts, and Proposed Recommendations of these W3C groups, to identify WAI dependencies and assist in resolving accessibility requirements.
During the past year, WAI has reviewed and commented on the following W3C activities and specifications, with outcomes as described.
WAI operates three guidelines-related working groups:
The Web Content Guidelines Working Group (GLWG) completed "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," (WCAG 1.0) which focuses on accessibility of Web sites for people with disabilities. W3C issued this as a Recommendation in May, 1999, indicating that the document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested parties and endorsed by the W3C Director, and is stable and may be used as reference material or cited as a normative reference from other documents.
The GLWG issued a W3C Note at the same time, "Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0." This technical reference note provides a detailed explanation of how to implement WCAG 1.0, for instance giving mark-up examples for most checkpoints in the guidelines.
As of the date of this report, WCAG 1.0 has been referenced as a compliance approach for Web site accessibility by the Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee of the U.S. Access Board in their report on Section 508 compliance by federal agencies; by the U.S. Department of Justice's self-evaluation tool for Section 508 compliance; by the Texas Education Agency's report on accessibility of electronic curricula; and by governments in Canada, Australia, and Portugal. Several additional governments are currently considering policies referencing WCAG 1.0 as the compliance mechanism for Web site accessibility. An increasing number of companies are adopting policies requiring their Web sites to comply with various levels of WCAG 1.0.
In June 1999, WAI received an "Excellence in Access: Access Advancement Award" from the Association of Access Engineering Specialists for the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The guidelines have also received significant press coverage, and are being translated into a number of different languages.
The Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group published several working drafts of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines in the past 12 months. These guidelines address the broad range of tools used to create Web content, ranging from text and WYSIWYG editors to conversion tools, database generators, image editors, site management tools, etc. The primary focus of these guidelines is to ensure that authoring tools support the creation of accessible Web content.
This working group is also developing a Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines document providing implementation detail and implementation examples.
The User Agent Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) published several working drafts of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines as well.
Recently, the WG decided to focus first on two types of user agents: graphical user interface "desktop" browsers, and assistive technologies such as screen readers or voice recognition that are used in conjunction with graphical desktop browsers. The guidelines also include information useful for text browsers, voice browsers, and multimedia players, but do not currently address those types of user agents comprehensively.
The ERIG is developing prototype tools to facilitate Web access, and is currently reviewing "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" to determine which checkpoints are machine-testable, and to resolve questions on interpretation of checkpoints where it may affect testability.
The ERIG has developed a working draft of "Techniques For Evaluation And Implementation Of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" which recommends machine-specific testing protocols for WCAG 1.0 checkpoints.
ERIG has developed a reporting tool for manual review of Web site accessibility; a table linearizer for use by people whose screen readers do not support unwrapping of table mark-up; an exploratory description of techniques to be used by tools extrapolating text-equivalents from HTML context; and compiled a reference list of evaluation, repair, and proxy tools.
The WAI International Program Office (IPO) provides overall coordination of WAI activities, including facilitating multi-stakeholder (industry, disability, research, government) participation in the WAI Technical Activity (technology, guidelines, and tool work areas). It maintains an Interest Group, with currently about 330 subscribers and high traffic. Discussion includes priorities and solutions for Web accessibility, and reviews of WAI documents. The WAI IG home page includes archives of WAI IG Updates starting from September 1998, and links to all WAI working groups.
The Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) develops strategies and materials to increase awareness in the Web community of the need for Web accessibility, and to educate the Web community regarding solutions to Web accessibility. These include a broad range of deliverables and activities, including promotional pieces such as flyers; general reference materials; technical reference materials on accessibility aspects of W3C specifications; curricula and on-line instructional materials; demonstration materials; and training programs & coordination w/ training events. As with other areas of WAI work, this working group relies heavily on time and resources contributed by organizations and individuals from a number of countries.
Materials completed during the past year two include:
Materials in draft form or nearly completed include:
In addition to developing re-usable materials for WAI outreach and education, the EOWG also exchanges information and strategies on outreach approaches used with different audiences and in different countries.
WAI domain staff gave 33 presentations in 13 countries during the second project year. In addition, many WAI participants of the EOWG have given presentations using WAI materials.
WAI's work so far has created strong foundation of activities and resources, with participation from hundreds of organizations and individuals across the various WAI groups. During the next year, WAI will continue to promote awareness and implementation of WAI resources, particularly WCAG 1.0, and expand WAI's technical work. We also need to start moving the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines towards the next generation of Web development.
Overall activities during next year will also continue to emphasize bridging of different stakeholder communities (industry, disability, access research, government) toward identification of user and developer requirements, and development of common solutions.
The following publications are available.
If you have any comments on this article, please contact the editors (exploit-editor@ukoln.ac.uk).
Daniel Dardailler
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Email: danield@w3.org
URL: <http://www.w3.org/People/danield/>
For citation purposes:
Daniel Dardailler, "The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),"
Exploit Interactive, issue 3, October 1999
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/wai/>
As the World Wide Web becomes central to success in education, business, and all aspects of life, it must be universally accessible. Bobby, a free interactive tool offered by CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology) on its Web site [1] analyzes Web pages for conformity with the Web Access Initiative's Web accessibility content guidelines and translates them into easy-to-use instructions which help Web developers create sites that are accessible to people with disabilities.
The World Wide Web is a vast and growing repository of information, a powerful communications forum, and an arena for commerce and exchange.
The Web also offers a rich educational environment. According to U.S. Vice President Al Gore, "One of the most important goals for us as a nation is to connect every classroom, library, and hospital to the information superhighway. We cannot tolerate...a society in which some children become fully educated and others do not; nor can we tolerate a society in which some adults have access to training and lifetime education, and others do not." [2].
The Vice President's goal is gradually being realized; more and more classrooms are connected to the information superhighway every day. But a physical connection does not guarantee access to the opportunities the Web offers. For the millions of people worldwide with disabilities, including the estimated 48.9 million in the U.S. alone [3] -- the World Wide Web is a challenging place.
For example, highly graphical sites present obstacles for those with visual impairments. For these individuals, screen readers can translate text to speech but cannot translate graphics. Audio files without text transcripts and videos without captions are inaccessible to those with hearing impairments, and sites that are rich with text provide little information to those with reading difficulties.
With more and more people -- including those with disabilities -- using the Web at home, at school and at work, it is increasingly important to address accessibility issues so that all individuals can have access to this vast resource. Making the Web accessible not only improves education and business; it is critical in meeting the legal mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. According to the ADA, employers, government agencies, and other publicly funded organizations are required to provide effective communication to individuals with disabilities "regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio media, or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communication regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well." In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken action against educational sites and companies for non-compliance [4].
Like most profound innovations, the Web holds great promise, but it is critical to act now to address the issue of its accessibility or its promise will not be fully realized.
In August 1996, CAST (the Center for Applied Special Technology) responded to this urgent need with its innovative, Web-based tool Bobby [1] an efficient, easy-to-use, free public service that helps Web developers make their pages accessible.
CAST, a nationally recognized not-for-profit educational organization based in Peabody, Massachusetts, was founded in 1984 to expand opportunities for people with disabilities through innovative uses of computer technology. To achieve this goal, CAST uses digital media to build "universally designed" products -- that is, educational software, Internet tools, and learning models that are usable by everyone, including people of all ages with sensory impairments, physical challenges, and learning disabilities.
Bobby is currently underwritten by IBM, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Mitsubishi Electric America Foundation, UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, and Aon Corporation.
Bobby analyzes HTML pages for conformity to the Web Access
Initiative (WAI)'s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and translates them
into instructions for improving their accessibility. Within seconds of typing in
a URL, Bobby delivers a full accessibility report on the Web page being
analyzed, specifying each barrier and explaining how to eliminate it. A site
that is deemed accessible can display the "Bobby Approved" icon.
For example, if Bobby finds images that do not have essential supplemental text descriptions (alt tags), it highlights the errors and specifies the remedy. Like its British law enforcement namesake, Bobby is meant to help, not reprimand; it provides prioritized suggestions for making sites more accessible.
The Web Access Initiative at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has taken leadership in developing guidelines for page authors to use to create accessible Web pages. Building on this work, and that of the Trace Research and Development Center at the University of Wisconsin, Bobby automates the process of evaluating sites based on these printed guidelines. CAST developed Bobby, an interactive online tool, to teach Web developers how to put these standards into practice by providing specific feedback on their designs, either during development or afterwards.
While some Web designers seek out Bobby because they are aware of accessibility issues, others discover Bobby when looking for a tool to test how various browsers will handle their page authoring code and how long their sites will take to load. They then discover the significant issues surrounding accessibility. This alternative entry point has enabled Bobby to educate Web designers who were not formerly aware of accessibility issues.
On May 5, 1999, CAST released Bobby 3.1 to coincide with the release of the W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. With this new version came a new benchmark for Bobby approval. The Bobby 3.1 accessibility report organizes errors by three levels of priority. Priority 1 issues are the most important to address for accessibility. Within the priority levels, the report is also grouped by items that Bobby can evaluate automatically, and descriptions of items that require human judgment to determine an appropriate response.
In order for a site to become Bobby Approved, it must now pass all Priority 1 items that Bobby finds as well as Priority 1 items that Bobby is unable to detect. A new category in the Bobby report called "Manual Checks" lists items that must be checked manually and corrected if necessary. Priority 2 and 3 items are also checked and reported, but they are not considered for Bobby Approved status at this time.
A few examples of items which are considered for Bobby approval follow:
To serve as an effective model of accessibility and good interface design, Bobby employs the latest technological innovations in its own design. Bobby is written in Java, and has two forms: the online server, and a downloadable version that uses the same page evaluation code and offers both a graphical and a command-line interface. Since it is written in Java, this version can run on many different hardware platforms. Bobby uses Java's most current accessibility features, which allows the program itself to be accessible to users with disabilities. Many access aids are built into the interface, and it has the requisite code to allow third party access aids to communicate with it effectively.
Bobby is designed to be an educational tool that teaches Web designers about Web accessibility. As Web designers use Bobby, they not only learn how to address problems within their own sites, they also learn skills that they can apply to site design in the future. Bobby offers concrete design suggestions and is linked to other sites that discuss access issues. Seeing how their sites look to people with disabilities gives Web developers an understanding of the sometimes subtle barriers "hidden" within their sites.
Because Bobby is a highly effective teaching tool, Web designers (including the rapidly growing number of non-professional designers who are putting up sites) learn skills they can apply later. The more people use Bobby, the more likely they will be to integrate accessibility principles into their way of thinking and their style of Web site design.
Joyce Taylor, a Web designer and desktop publisher, says, "I do not make a Web page that I do not put through (Bobby). I'm not disabled but I feel sites on the Web should be available to all. I made some major changes (to my sites)...(and) watched my sites change and grow as I learned accessibility."
Free of charge and efficient, Bobby simplifies and encourages Web accessibility testing. Because of this increased testing, more and more people are becoming aware of the importance of Web accessibility.
Cynthia Waddell, ADA Coordinator for the City of San Jose, CA, says:
"Bobby has encouraged further research and creativity worldwide by Web designers who seek to ensure the widest possible audience for their sites. Likewise, Internet end-users...can point to Bobby as a resource for improving accessibility on poorly designed sites. As a result, Bobby (is) an information referral I provide for all inquiries on accessible Web design...."
As more developers use Bobby, accessibility on the Web will no longer be an afterthought. Rather, it will become a fundamental part of the design process.
Multiculturalism of the tool means that it must be usable, from the opening interface to the final report, by people with different assumptions, experiences, and educational backgrounds. A first step to achieving these goals will be the creation of an international version of Bobby that allows users to switch languages on the fly.
Bobby already provides English-only reports for non-English Web pages from around the world. It is important that Bobby be able to examine non-English pages in a manner appropriate to the language and without misinterpreting non-Latin character encodings, as well as to provide reports in that language (or another language of the user's choice).
CAST is working closely with IBM Japan to produce a Japanese version of Bobby, and French, Dutch and German-language versions are also under development. Bobby 4.0, to be released next spring, will provide this language support in a single international version that will have the capacity to change language at the user's request. Support for specific languages will be in the form of accessory modules that can be added to Bobby with little or no user configuration required, or by simply selecting a checkbox on the online version of Bobby.
Currently, Bobby is primarily positioned as an access evaluation tool, one that analyzes access issues and provides initial feedback to the user. It does not yet have the capability of repairing problems directly; users must make these repairs themselves. CAST, in partnership with the University of Toronto and the Trace Center, is developing an interactive tool that not only incorporates Bobby's evaluation capabilities, but also will step a Web designer through the process of repairing access issues that have been identified. The proposed effort is part of a larger collaboration between the partners and the Web Access Initiative to create a set of tools that will help Webmasters create or recreate sites that are accessible to and usable by individuals with a wide range of disabilities.
"What's the point of having a World Wide Web if it's only accessible to a few people?"asks the Webmaster at Queen Mary and Westfield College in London.
Fortunately, this is a question that is being asked by many. Already Bobby is having a significant impact on Web accessibility throughout the world. The downloadable application, which can test entire Web sites in one pass, was used by over 5,900 organizations in the first year of its release, including IBM, AT&T, Bell Labs, Microsoft, and other major corporations. Bobby has been downloaded by sites in the United States, Canada, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia. Currently, over 4,800 Web sites provide links to Bobby, thus multiplying its impact.
Accessibility is integral to connecting schools, libraries, businesses, and families to the information superhighway. A more accessible Web promotes opportunities for everyone at school, work, and home. With Bobby, CAST educates Web designers and increases the odds that all individuals, especially students, will have the same opportunities to explore the virtual world as they do to explore the "real" world.
Access the online version of Bobby and download a copy of the local version from the Bobby web site [1]. There is a FAQ page with resources to some common site design places.
Bobby uses the current set of guidelines from the WC3-WAI [5] in the analysis of pages. Included with the guidelines is an extended "techniques" page that tells you how to implement Bobby's suggestions.
A collection of resources from the Trace Center about Web design are available [6]. Trace has done much of the groundwork for the information used by the W3C.
Information about Lynx, a text-only browser is available [7]. Using Lynx to browse your pages is a good way to find usability issues that Bobby cannot directly address. Lynx works on multiple platforms, but if you do not install your own copy, you can simulate it by using lynxview service [8].
If you have any comments on this article, please contact the editors (exploit-editor@ukoln.ac.uk).
Lisa Poller
Associate Director of Development
CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology)
39 Cross Street, Suite 201
Peabody
MA 01960
USA
URL: <http://www.cast.org/>
Email: lpoller@cast.org
Ms. Poller joined CAST in May 1997 as associate director of development where she contributes to institutional advancement through corporate, foundation, federal and individual fundraising. Her responsibilities include prospect and strategy development, proposal writing, solicitations, and the development of CAST's federal fundraising program. Ms. Poller received a bachelor's degree in American studies and English literature from Brandeis University, and a master's degree in museum studies in education from Tufts University.
Prior to joining CAST, Ms. Poller was associate director of development at the Danforth Museum of Art, Framingham, MA. She was formerly director of research and corporate and foundation relations for New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA. Her background also includes corporate consulting and business intelligence.
Chuck Hitchcock
Director, Universal Design Laboratory
E-mail:
chitchcock@cast.org
Telephone: 978 531-8555 ext. 233
As director of the National Universal Design Laboratory, Chuck Hitchcock oversees CAST's software development,technology innovation and Web site development. He is the chief developer of many of CAST's Macintosh and Windows educational and tool software. He contributes as a software development team member for internal projects and on contracts with publishers and other organizations.
Mr. Hitchcock has extensive practical experience in special education administration, technology education, and teaching at all levels from early childhood to graduate school. He co-directed a private learning disabilities clinic, served as the founding director of a Massachusetts state-wide technology training and support center that served 180 school districts, and was an account executive for hardware and educational software companies.
Mr. Hitchcock serves on the Board of Directors of Universal Learning Technology (ULT), CAST's commercial affiliate in Peabody, MA. ULT has successfully commercialized products developed within the CAST Universal Design Laboratory. Mr. Hitchcock completed his special education undergraduate work at Fitchburg State College and received his master's degree in educational administration and counseling from the Antioch Graduate Center.
Michael Cooper
Educational and Technical Designer
E-mail: mcooper@cast.org
Telephone: 978 531-8555 ext. 265
Mr. Cooper's primary responsibility is educational design of technology-based learning environments, especially those delivered on the Internet. His expertise with technical aspects of universal design is critical to this work. He also helps provide professional development experiences and is the Design and Technical lead for Bobby, CAST's Web page accessibility validation tool.
Michael Cooper received a Master of Education from Harvard University in 1998. While at Harvard, he worked with the WGBH Teacher Center to support technology in the curriculum. Before coming to the Boston area he worked in the disability services office at the University of Denver in Colorado, where he helped arrange class accommodations for students with disabilities, managed the assistive technology program, consulted on universal design of educational technology and the University's Internet site, and guided physical accessibility retrofit initiatives.
Cindy O'Neill
Email: coneill@cast.org
Lucinda O'Neill received her bachelor's degree in English from Wheaton College,
Norton, Massachusetts. She has been a writer for CAST's development office since 1996,
and is a contributing writer for the "About CAST" section of CAST's Web site.
Founded in 1984, CAST is a not-for-profit educational organization whose
mission is to expand opportunities for individuals with disabilities through
innovative uses of technology. CAST's staff of 30 professionals includes
specialists in education, special education, reading and language arts, learning
disabilities, neuropsychology, vision rehabilitation, hearing impairment,
curriculum design, Web development, and programming.
CAST has pioneered universal design for learning, a framework for responding to individual learner differences through the use of technology. The basic premise of universal design for learning is that flexibility can be built into teaching and assessment methods, and the design of educational media and materials, making them accessible and applicable to students and teachers with different backgrounds, learning styles, abilities and disabilities in widely varied learning contexts.
In December 1999, CAST will launch the National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, a five-year initiative to improve learning outcomes for students with disabilities. This $2.5 million award from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs will bring together CAST, as the lead organization, and three partner organizations: Harvard Children's Initiative and Harvard Law School, Boston College, and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC).
Most recently, CAST was a 1999 Computerworld Smithsonian Award finalist for BobbySM: A Public Service for Web Accessibility, acknowledged by Web experts throughout the world as the premier validation tool for disability access. CAST was also a finalist in the 1998 SAP/Stevie Wonder Vision Awards in the Vision Pioneer of the Year category for Bobby.
For citation purposes:
Lisa Poller, "Bobby: CAST's Free Public Service for Web Accessibility",
Exploit Interactive, issue 3, 25 October 1999
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/bobby/>
In this article Elizabth Graham gives a brief introduction to the work of the UK Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) [1]. The article describes the background and rationale behind the programme before considering some of the themes that have arisen and the possible direction of future developments.
In 1992 the four UK Higher Education Funding bodies (HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW and DENI) established a Review Group, chaired by Professor Sir Brian Follett, as an attempt to identify and address some of the problems faced by university libraries, particularly given the new universities created in 1992. The report of the Review Group - the ‘Follett’ report published in 1993 [2] - comments that “there needs to be a sea-change in the way institutions plan and provide for the information needs of those working within them”. The report goes on to note that “the exploitation of IT is essential to create the library service of the future”. A number of highly practical recommendations were made including the need for central investment in IT development projects such as on-demand publishing, electronic journals and navigational tools. Under the auspices of the funding bodies’ Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) [3] £15 million was set aside over 3 years from top-sliced funding to implement these recommendations and as a result of this the eLib Programme was born.
During the period 1995-1998, two separate calls for proposals resulted in almost sixty projects being funded in a variety of Programme Areas [4]. The range of projects funded aimed to address a variety of issues. These included support for teaching and learning through improved access to resources, for example, through the on-demand publishing and digitisation areas. Electronic publishing projects investigated different publishing models and were of particular relevance to researchers, as were the document delivery and access to network resources (subject gateway) projects. Skills development within the library community and the integration of the new technologies into daily routine were addressed by the training and awareness strand. In funding these projects the emphasis was very much on developing and improving services which already existed to a greater or lesser extent in university libraries, as opposed to ‘pure’ research. Since 1995 projects have been supported by a central co-ordination Programme Office based at the University of Warwick.
Among eLib’s early projects, MODELS [5] has been especially influential. Led by UKOLN (the UK Office for Library and Information Networking) [6], MODELS is based around a series of workshops which address themes of significance to the library and information community by drawing on the expertise of invited practitioners worldwide. Outcomes are recommendations and theoretical models such as the MODELS Information Architecture (MIA) which “aims to facilitate understanding and discussion of the issues that must be considered in the development of hybrid information environments” [7]. The recommendations aim to influence strategic planning in the UK Higher Education community and beyond. MODELS has already had a significant influence on the direction taken by eLib in its third phase. Discussions at MODELS workshops 3 and 4 led to the call for ‘clumps’ projects described below. The project is also involved in shaping the concept of the Distributed National Electronic Resource (DNER), in relation to both the technical infrastructure and its vision of the creation of a managed environment.
As eLib's early projects began to deliver, the recognition that there was still much work to be done in this area led to the issuing of a new call for proposals in March 1997. The projects in eLib's third phase have been running since early 1998 and taken as a whole can be seen as an attempt to assimilate the knowledge gained from earlier phases of eLib and the wider community to build exemplar digital libraries for the future. The four strands in this phase are:
Facilitating access to disparate information resources whether print or electronic and wherever they are located is one of the key themes of eLib Phase 3. This issue is among those addressed by the five projects funded in the hybrid libraries strand, which aim “to bring together technologies from … new developments, plus the electronic products and services already in libraries, and the historical functions of our local, physical libraries, into well organised, accessible hybrid libraries” [8]. The ability to search across these resources is key and the hybrid libraries search engine described in an article by Ian Upton elsewhere in this issue [9] is an important step towards meeting this goal.
A most important role for the hybrid library projects is to disseminate what they have learned as widely as possible. They have worked very hard at a wide variety of dissemination activities, including a conference presenting the work of eLib Phase 3 projects to be held on 24-25th November 1999 in London [10]. Suggestions for further dissemination activities which support and assist the takeup and implementation of hybrid library services are warmly welcomed.
The Anderson report of 1995 [11] examines the need for libraries to share resources more effectively in order to support the needs of researchers more efficiently. One way of achieving this will be to make library catalogues cross-searchable, linking them virtually using Z39.50. The ethos behind the four eLib clumps projects is that of working towards resource sharing in higher education libraries through the creation of virtual library union catalogues. They are doing very useful research on the practical problems of using Z39.50 on a large scale. Clumps projects are also contributing to research into collection level description, metadata which will highlight a library's collection strengths allowing pre-selection of relevant catalogues before searching, thus improving efficiency.
Although funded by and for the UK Higher Education community it goes without saying that a successful programme cannot afford to be introspective. The eLib Programme has proved successful at forging links with a significant number of bodies both within UK academia and beyond. At project level, although lead sites must be Higher Education Institutions, partners include public libraries (in the RIDING [12] and CAIRNS [13] clumps), library suppliers (Agora [14]) and publishers (HERON [15]). One project (JEDDS [16]) had three partners in the Southern hemisphere. Many of eLib's early subject gateway projects such as EEVL [17], OMNI [18] and SOSIG [19] are making the transition to faculty level hubs under the newly-established Resource Discovery Network to be formally launched on 19th November 1999. As a matter of course these will establish links with stakeholders in the appropriate subject area such as museums and professional societies.
Projects within the eLib Programme have also made a substantial contribution to the ongoing development of standards. Besides the office's own guidelines [20], project staff have been involved in the development of Z39.50, collection level description and metadata schema.
The eLib Programme Office aims to support awareness of activities in the wider community through email discussion lists – such as the lis-elib Mailbase list [21] which currently has over 1,000 members – and through a programme of events. These range from one day briefings to a 3 day conference which was organised in York in December 1998. Each event organised by eLib aims to include at least one speaker from the wider community to give a sense of perspective. In the past these have included speakers from Germany, the US, Canada, Australia, and from EU-funded projects based in the UK.
The eLib Programme funds one project (CEDARS) [22] which is examining the strategic, methodological and practical issues involved in the long-term preservation of digital material. The project will also contribute to a national strategy for digital preservation by working closely with a Digital Preservation Coalition, whose establishment has recently been agreed by eLib's funding committee, JCEI (JISC Committee on Electronic Information).
It is obviously far too early to predict what the long-term impact of eLib will be. A report on the Early Impact of eLib Activities on Cultural Change in Higher Education (1997) [23] found “a general recognition that eLib is only a contributor to the general cultural change which is happening in HE, and specifically in the library and information service context”. Nonetheless the report did acknowledge that “the programme has motivated publishers to participate more fully than previously” and that training and awareness projects such as Netskills [24], Netlinks [25] and Edulib [26] were valuable in supporting library staff when roles were being redefined. An external summative evaluation of eLib phases 1 and 2 is currently underway and this will aid our understanding of eLib's wider impact and the value for money offered to the UK Higher Education community.
In summary, the eLib Programme Office continues to work with JCEI to develop a long-term strategy for dealing with digital material. Many deliverables from eLib projects are subsumed within the wider national strategies, such as the JISC Collections Policy [26] which “endeavours to describe the parameters of the national collection, to set out policies for its development, and to identify areas for collaboration with data providers and data users outwith the Higher Education sector”. The Collections Policy also includes an outline of the concept of the DNER. The vision of the DNER informs decisions taken by JCEI and has “the potential to provide real improvements in the presentation of JISC resources and associated services” [27] through the integration of resources through linking, cross-searching and tailoring these to the needs of specific communities.
Elizabeth Graham
eLib Development Co-ordinator
eLib Programme Office
University of Warwick
Coventry CV4 7AL
URL: <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/>
Email: elib@jisc.ac.uk
For citation purposes:
Elizabeth Graham, "eLib: the UK Electronic Libraries Programme",
Exploit Interactive, issue 3, 25 October 1999
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/elib/>
Ian Upton introduces the Hybrid Library Projects Search Engine [1]. The aim of the search engine is to demonstrate the potential of a seamless interface cross-searching a number of web servers and document types.
The Hybrid Library Projects Search Engine is a web application developed using Microsoft SiteServer [2]. SiteServer is a Back Office component [3] that sits on top of Microsoft Internet Information Server (IIS) and provides personalisation, analysis and indexing facilities. Indexing can be facilitated using file scans and / or HTTP crawls.
 Figure 1: The Hybrid Library Search Interface |
BUILDER [4] first encountered SiteServer when researching ways to index two electronic journal products, Midland History [5] and Forensic Linguistics [6], available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format. As well as indexing HTML and Microsoft Office documents, SiteServer can be coerced into indexing Adobe Acrobat (.PDF) files, using a plug-in [7], which made it an attractive proposition for supporting these deliverables. SiteServer can be obtained for less than £150 through the Microsoft Select Scheme. Even though BUILDER has only exploited SiteServers indexing facilities (so far ignoring personalisation and analysis) the software has been a cost-effective purchase.
Having implemented journal searching and provided a search facility for the BUILDER Web site we became aware of SiteServers ability to cross-search different web resources and present results as a single ranked list. Given current discussions, cross-searching different web sites on different platforms is clearly a hot topic. Having a tool that provided a possible solution we began to look for a demonstrator and the Hybrid Library Projects Search Engine was born!
So what would be involved in setting up a similar product from scratch? The task can be divided into the following areas:
SiteServer runs on a Windows NT Server running IIS 4.0. The software can be installed in a matter of minutes. Warning! Our experience of SiteServer is that it is a very processor intensive piece of software and, given the choice, we would advise setting it up on a dedicated box. For industrial applications it is possible to set the software up so that database functionality is performed by SQL Server rather than SiteServers native Access database. For our BUILDER applications we did not feel that such measures were necessary.
All of SiteServers functionality is controlled through a straightforward graphical user interface (GUI) which includes test search pages so you can check indexes before developing your own interfaces to them. We spent about a day familiarising ourselves with the administration interface.
Once a search application has been constructed maintenance becomes no more than an administrative task. We estimate it would now take one to two hours training to get a typical department administrator up to the point where they could create, modify and check searches in an existing search engine application. Office IT skills (database, spreadsheet, email) experience is more than adequate for this role.
Once set up, the search process looks after itself. Crawls can be scheduled (the Hybrid Library Projects Search Engine crawls at 2 am each night) and the intensity of the crawl can be controlled. Warning! It is possible to let the SiteServer spider loose and bring a remote web server to its knees. By default SiteServer will retrieve five documents at a time concurrently. For an application such as the Hybrid Library Projects Search Engine this is clearly overkill and is likely to upset web server administrators. For the Hybrid Library Projects Search Engine we adjusted this default to retrieve a single document every two seconds during off-peak periods.
Although you can use the supplied interface to access created indexes, SiteServer exposes itself as a number of IIS components. These components can be easily accessed from within the Active Server Pages (ASP) environment and manipulated using server-side VBScript, Javascript or Perl. Given the component nature of the environment , scripting search pages takes the form of glueing these components together to create the required functionality. Developing the Hybrid Library Projects Search Engine web interface took approximately two days. Such development may take longer in other contexts. (BUILDER already has significant ASP experience.)
This example VBScript code snippet performs a query and returns result as an array for display within a web page. This code snippet represents about 90% of the code involved in implementing the Hybrid Library Projects Search Engine.
|
# get querystring ' Create the Query Object, and set properties for the search. ' Execute the query and create the recordset holding the search results. ' Generate response. ' construct records ' return to search page | ||
| Figure 2: Code Fragment |
If you have any comments on this article, please contact the editors (exploit-editor@ukoln.ac.uk).
Ian Upton
Technical Development Officer
Information Services
Main Library
The University of Birmingham
Birmingham
URL: <http://builder.bham.ac.uk/>
URL: <http://www.idsolutions.co.uk/ian/>
Email: i.p.upton@bham.ac.uk
Tel: +44 0121 414 6380
For citation purposes:
Ian Upton, "BUILDER: the Hybrid Library Projects Search Engine",
Exploit Interactive, issue 3, 25 October 1999
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/builder/>
Marianne Peereboom describes approaches to providing multilingual support in subject gateways.
With support from the EU's Telematics Application Programme, phase 1 of the DESIRE I project (1996-1998) aimed to enable and enhance large-scale information networks for the research community. The 10 partners are continuing this work in DESIRE II (which runs until June 2000), focussing on distributed Web indexing, subject-based Web cataloguing, directory services and caching. One of the results of DESIRE I was a set of tools and guidelines to support Subject Gateways: services based on selection, description and classification of high quality networked resources, which emphasise the importance of skilled human involvement in the assessment and 'quality control' of their collections.
One of the objectives of DESIRE II is to enhance existing services and promote the development of new gateways using the DESIRE tools and guidelines. To support this an Information Gateways Handbook [1] has been published, for libraries wishing to set up their own information gateway on the Internet. The handbook covers strategic and information management issues as well as technical requirements. One of the things gateway managers have to decide is which multilingual facilities they want to include in their service. This article addresses some of those issues. It is based in part on the chapter about multilinguality in the Information Gateways Handbook.
Subject Gateways need to address the language needs of their audiences. Users may want to search a multilingual collection by using queries in one language or to retrieve documents in a number of specific languages, preferably also via an interface in the language of their choice. In some cases they may require some translation or summary in another language than that of the document. Ideally Subject Gateways should provide their users with the language support they need. In reality this will very likely be restricted, depending on the available technologies, the language skills of staff involved in selection and cataloguing, and last but not least, cost considerations.
Gateway managers will be confronted with various choices relating to the language support of the service they want to provide. Those choices for mono- or multilingual support present itself at many different levels:
The scope policy of a gateway outlines the subject areas and the types of resources covered by the gateway. This includes language and geographical parameters. To set language parameters for a gateway the following questions will have to be asked:
The choices made in this area directly determine the skills required of the staff responsible for selecting and/or cataloguing the resources as well as the choice of relevant authoring and access tools and software. For example: creating an information gateway that includes resources in all European languages would require input from a team mastering all those languages between them. If the cataloguing is done by a separate team, this would also have to consist of people with extensive language skills. Not many gateways will be able to manage such a broad coverage with an in-house team. A distributed model - as opposed to a centralised model, where the gateway is the responsibility of one organisation - could offer a solution, by getting input from a multinational team, located in various countries, providing their input via the WWW. In this case a multilingual development framework needs to be implemented, based on standards in information retrieval and exchange. SOSIG provides an interesting case study of such a model. As the core team of SOSIG consists of English native speakers with no other language skills, SOSIG created a network of European correspondents, who suggest resources in a number of other languages to SOSIG staff. Problems with this approach are that the service is dependent on the good will of unpaid staff, and that communication takes place almost exclusively in a virtual environment.
A multilingual gateway would require the WWW software lying behind the gateway to cope with multilingual data handling, search, retrieval and display. Existing standards and recommendations provide a framework for multilingual support in data communications and in description formats and metadata. [2].
The HTTP protocol, on which the Web is based, includes information about the type of the transferred information and the character encoding for text-based information. Based on the exchange of information between client (browser) and server (HTTP server) it is possible to provide character encoding and language negotiation between the information provider and the requester with regard to the accepted and preferred formats of the resources:
http-equiv="Content-Type" Content="text/html; charset=euc-jp"
The Content-Language entity header field describes the natural language(s) of the intended audience for the enclosed document:
http-equiv="Content-Type" Content-Language=se
If no Content-Language is specified, the default is that the content is intended for all language audiences.
It is also recommended to include information about the character encoding being used in the META information of the HTML document:
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" Content="text/html; charset=euc-jp">
Recent developments in XML provide facilities for defining/labelling the language of the whole document, entity or item by including language attributes in the corresponding tag. For example:
<p xml:lang="en">The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.</p>
<p xml:lang="en-GB">What colour is it?</p>
<p xml:lang="en-US">What color is it?</p>
<sp who="Faust" desc='leise' xml:lang="de">
<l>Habe nun, ach! Philosophie,</l>
<l>Juristerei, und Medizin</l>
<l>und leider auch Theologie</l>
<l>durchaus studiert mit heißem Bemüh'n.</l>
</sp>
Although the default XML Character Set Encodings are UTF-8 and UTF-16 (which are encodings for ISO 10646 or UNICODE), specific encodings for XML documents can be defined in the initial XML declaration for the whole document or entity (which can be regarded as a separately stored part of the whole document), for example:
<? xml encoding='UTF-8' ?>
<? xml encoding='ISO8859-1' ?>
The Dublin Core metadata element set provides possibilities for defining the language of the intellectual content of the resource, the record and the labelling language of particular fields by means of assigning attibutes to the relevant Dublin Core field.
|
DC.Language Format An English resource<meta name = "DC.Language"content = "en"> <meta name = "DC.Language" scheme = "rfc1766" content = "en"> An American resource<meta name = "DC.Language"scheme = "rfc1766" content = "en-US"> A Japanese resource<meta name = "DC.Language"content = "ja"> A German resource, catalogued in French<meta name = "DC.Language"lang = "fr" content = "allemand"> |
Field content language labeling/attributing. A work in Spanish may be assigned the following metadata: <meta name = "DC.Language" |
The metadata record will determine for a large part the search support a service will be able to provide. The more sophisticated the metadata format, and the more consistent the cataloguing practice, the more advanced retrieval options you will be able to support. On the other hand: 'garbage in = garbage out'. Some investment in multilingual development software/authoring tools as well as effort on the cataloguing side is necessary.
Traditional library practice is to create one record for one resource. On the Internet the question is what exactly constitutes a resource - the granularity issue. This is also relevant to language issues. Do you include only complete versions of the document, or do you also register parts of a site that are available in another language? If so, how substantial does the translated section have to be? A related issue is the problem of whether to create a separate record for each language version. For books this has been traditional practice; the translation of a book will get its own cataloguing record. For the Internet environment, it may be worth while to store information about different language versions in one record, as long as the fields relating to one version are linked in some way. It will be less labour-intensive to keep one record up to date, and there is no need to maintain a system of cross-references between language versions in order to keep track of different versions of one document.
Cataloguing rules relating to language may include:
Cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) is the possibility to formulate queries in a natural language and retrieve documents in other languages than the language used for the query [3]. The main approaches are defined by Peters and Picchi [4] as:
The first two approaches are the most relevant for Subject Gateways.
For Cross-Language information retrieval, machine translation of the documents does not seem the most realistic option, because of the costs (and the fact that some aspects are redundant for CLIR, like treatment of word order). More feasible is the translation of the query into the language(s) of the documents. Retrieved documents may than be translated for the user, if required, a service that Alta Vista currently provides. It would be possible to add this service to an information gateway. Although results of machine translation are often far from perfect, readers may prefer a flawed translation of a document they can not read to none at all.
First attempts involved matching the query to the document using machine-readable dictionaries. The best results have been reached with thesaurus-based approaches. The drawback is that thesaurus construction and maintenance is expensive, and training is required for optimum usage. In the case of thesaurus-based controlled vocabulary indexing and searching a set of monolingual thesauri is used which all map to a common system of concepts. Instead of the labour intensive manual assignment of thesaurus terms by indexers, research is being carried out in the area of (semi-)automatic assignment of terms. Thesauri may also form the basis for the more complex cross-language free text searching, where the query must be mapped to possible terms in the language(s) of the documents. ISO 5964 recognizes three approaches to the construction of multilingual thesauri:
Although some gateways use thesauri for subject access (OMNI) [5] or to provide the user with additional assistance in the choice of search terms (SOSIG), little or no use has been made by gateways of the potential of using the thesaurus for multilingual retrieval.
If resources are classified using the numerical code from a classification scheme which is available in more than one language, this enables language independent search as well as the possibility to create a browsing structure in more than one language. It will also be relatively easy to add a new language to the browsing structure later, without having to update the individual records. In which languages a classification scheme is available, and/or if it is feasable to translate the scheme in new languages when the need arises, may influece the decision for a particular scheme.
Keywords may be added to the resource description in any language. Also in this case a consistent policy will enhance retrieval possibilities. Keywords can be added:
Keywords may be uncontrolled (for instance derived from the document itself) or chosen from a controlled vocabulary. When available in more than one language this will provide opportunities for searching documents in various languages with a query in one language.
In general users should be made aware of the consequences of the way they formulate their queries. This is easier said than done, if you want to avoid extensive help files or cluttered interfaces. For example: a simple query (all fields) in French may retrieve a document with this word in the title, but it won't result in any hits in the description field, if the descriptions are in English. As is well known, users are not very keen on reading help pages, so the search interface design should aim to present the language options in a clear and intuitive way.
To provide a bilingual interface seems to be the easiest part of providing multilingual support. Still some questions should be considered in relation to the language(s) of the interface and the choice for a mono- or multilingual interface.
The expected language skills of the target audience will be of major importance. This will be easier to determine if the gateway wants to serve a well defined language community rather then a broad heterogeneous audience. Staff will need to have the necessary skills to provide and maintain pages in more than one language. If not there will be extra costs for third party assistance, for instance a translation service. The gateway manager will have to balance the extra cost of creating and maintaining a multilingual interface with the profit for the users. Also it should be considered which multilingual browsing or search support can be offered in addition to the multilingual interface. For instance: is the classification scheme available in all languages of the interface, so the browsing structure can also be generated in those languages?
Existing gateways in general don't have much to offer yet in terms of multilingual support. Quite a few gateways - at least if they are not based in either the UK or the US - do have a bilingual interface: mostly English and the language of the gateway's 'home' country. More sophisticated facilities, like multilingual search and/or browse support are not often available.
Subject gateways hardly ever describe the extent of their provisions in a detailed way, so it is difficult to assess what exactly they have to offer. In a report conducted as part of the DESIRE I project in 1997 [6], an assesment is given of a number of services: gateways, but also directories like Yahoo and robot based services. The gateways included in this survey are ADAM (art), OMNI (medical information), EEVL (engineering), ARGUS Clearinghouse (multidisciplinary) and DutchESS (multidisciplinary). Of these only DutchESS is based in a non-English speaking country (The Netherlands).
The main conclusion from this review was that there was considerable inconsistency in the way existing services deal with language issues. Not only did different gateways vary in their policies, there was also a lot of inconsistency within individual gateways. For example, titles are sometimes displayed in the language of the resource, and sometimes only in English, and when resources are available in more than one language this is only sometimes mentioned. Some Internet search engines also offer a form of multilingual support, such as interfaces in various languages, localised search by country usually based on domain name, or automatic translation (such as Alta Vista's Babelfish, based on the Systran translation system).
The table below gives the multilingual provisions of four services based in four European countries: DutchESS, SOSIG, the Finnish Virtual Library and the SSG-FI. It appears that the conclusions from the DESIRE report are still valid. Although all these services have some multilingual provisions, yet there seem to be no gateways with a sophisticated and consistent multilingual policy, including possibilities for multilingual retrieval.
DutchESS
| |
|---|---|
| home country: | The Netherlands |
| scope policy: | Resources in all languages are accepted provided the DutchESS subject specialist has the necessary language skill to evaluate the resource |
| language(s) of interface: | Dutch and English |
| language(s) of browsing structure: | Dutch and English |
| cataloguing rules: |
|
Finnish Virtual Library | |
|---|---|
| home country: | Finland |
| scope policy: | The FVL is a distributed service, different organisations are responsible for creating the Virtual Library for a certain subject field. Scope is determined by the needs of the frame organization and users - so this does allow for the selection of resources in any language, but most resources are in English, Finnish and Swedish |
| language(s) of interface: | Finnish, with parts in English |
| language(s) of browsing structure: | Finnish and English |
| cataloguing rules: |
|
SOSIG (Social Sciences information Gateway) | |
|---|---|
| home country: | UK |
| scope policy: | SOSIG accepts resources in any language providing it has been evaluated by a member of the SOSIG team (consisting of core staff and correspondents) who is fluent in that language. The quality may be determined from a translation as opposed to the original language version |
| language(s) of interface: | English |
| language(s) of browsing structure: | English |
| cataloguing rules: |
|
SSG-FI Special Subject Guides / Fachinformation | |
|---|---|
| home country: | Germany |
| scope policy: | no language restrictions |
| language(s) of interface: | English (part also or only in German, especially help pages) |
| language(s) of browsing structure: | English |
| cataloguing rules: |
|
| search support: | possibility to specify language of documents in advanced search option |
For the EULER project, which is building an integrated interface to mathematical resources, a user survey was executed in 1998, to specify user needs. [7] One series of questions addressed their expectations of multilingual features. Multilingual provisions in the user interface were evaluated very low. On the other hand user surveys of the Finnish Virtual Library project showed that its users highly valued resource descriptions and help pages in their own Finnish language. One reason for this could be that mathematicians are used to communicating and publishing in English, while the audience of the FVL is broader and more heterogeneous in terms of language skills. Anyway, it seems advisable to try and determine the language skills and needs of the target audience, before deciding about which language provisions to include in a gateway service.
The Reynard project is currently being negotiated with the EU within the Information Society Technologies programme (Fifth Framework Programme). It is to start in January 2000 and will run for 2,5 years. The main objective of this project is to develop a European broker service which will give access to various European subject services. Partners are national libraries, research libraries which have acquired expertise in different areas of subject gateway development, library related technology centres and university computer centres.
In this context multilinguality issues will also have to be addressed. Existing tools for indexing and searching in a multilingual environment will be examined, taking into special consideration metadata, classification systems and controlled vocabularies and thesauri in different languages. The possibilities for efficient translations and mapping between various controlled language systems will be researched. This will result in a state of the art report, including recommendations for the Reynard service. This will be the input for some testbed activity in the areas of multilingual retrieval and multilingual data flows.
Multilinguality is a complex issue. Although a lot of technology has become available in recent years, many problems have yet to be solved. For the time being gateways will not be able to provide more than very basic facilities if they need to keep costs within acceptable limits. However, putting some effort into making consistent choices - based on user needs - concerning such issues as scope and selection policy, metadata and cataloguing, classification and subject indexing, as well as regarding the use of the appropriate technologies, may greatly enhance the language support a gateway will be able to provide. Any extra facilities will have their costs, though, in terms of extra initial effort, maintenance, required skills of staff and so on. Institutions providing subject gateways - as well as other services on the Internet - will have to decide in each case whether the benefits for their users outweigh the necessary efforts to provide them. Ongoing research, like that in the Reynard project, may open up new ways to deal with those issues in the future. Multilinguality remains one of the challenges that have to be addressed to be able to serve a multitude of language communities without creating a virtual tower of Babel.
If you have any comments on this article, please contact the editors (exploit-editor@ukoln.ac.uk).
Marianne Peereboom
Library Research Department
Koninklijke Bibliotheek (National Library of the Netherlands)
PO Box 90407
NL-2509 LK The Hague
The Netherlands
URL: <http://www.kb.nl/>
Email: marianne@python.konbib.nl
Marianne Peereboom is employed as project co-ordinator
at the Library Research Department of the
Koninklijke Bibliotheek (the National Library of
The Netherlands). She is responsible for future development of the Dutch national
subject gateway DutchESS and is involved
in the DESIRE projects and project co-ordinator of the Reynard project.
For citation purposes:
Marianne Peereboom, "Multilingual Provision by Subject Gateways",
Exploit Interactive, issue 3, October 1999
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/multilingual-gateways/>
Christine Dugdale comments on some recently published EC statistics.
An interesting set of European Commission statistics have recently been published [1]. These provide a general overview of the scope and involvement of European organisations in those research activities across Europe, in the LIS field, that have been funded under the two Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development between 1990 and 1998. These have been carried out under the more familiar names of the "Libraries Programme" and the "Telematics for Libraries" Programme.
The rather dry lists and tables of statistics reveal an increasingly wide range of interest in undertaking library-related research activity right across Europe. One of the aims of the Exploit Interactive web magazine is to raise awareness about the effort and interest expended in projects and current research within the pan-European library and networking communities. Its publication of these statistics reveals that there is, indeed, a great deal of work being done and a great deal of interest has already been generated. Exploit Interactive also aims to encourage the development of partnerships. Again, these statistics reveal the depth of collaboration that has already taken and is taking place. International co-operation is, of course, necessary to promote a global consensus for interoperability and standardisation and to encourage the adoption of best practice across different areas. In the digital age and the global economy, co-operation is necessary across countries and across sectors. These figures show that such co-operation is regularly taking place both between organisations and through the multi-faceted involvement of the individual organisations that have participated in several proposals and/or projects.
Despite the fact that some organisations have actually participated in several proposals and/or projects, the numbers of organisations and individuals who have actually participated and, especially, the number of those involved in the submission of proposals is very impressive.
The statistics detail numbers of individuals, organisations and countries that have submitted proposals or have been involved in projects funded to carry out research under the two frameworks. In all, there were five calls for proposals; three under the "Libraries Programme" and two under the "Telematics for Libraries Programme". One big difference between these calls was that the 1996 call under the "Telematics for Libraries" Programme included Central and Eastern European countries (through the funding of the International Co-operation Programme). In total, 520 proposals were submitted under the five calls made between 1991 and 1996 - involving 3023 individuals.
These two figures alone reveal the depth of interest and desire for research across Europe in the library sector.
From these proposals, 104 projects were selected for funding. These included 87 projects, 3 concerted actions and 14 accompanying measures. Again the corresponding numbers are impressive. The projects involved 653 individuals who represented 451 different organisations. They also involved individuals and organisations from 24 different countries, though those from Central and Eastern Europe have only participated in the later projects funded under the 1996 call. The largest number of participants from a single country is 134 from the UK with 61 from Italy and 59 from the Netherlands. Interest in participation, however, is widespread with the involvement of 638 individuals from 17 EU/EFTA countries and 15 individuals from 7 C and EE countries. Moreover, the figures reveal a growing interest in participation from most countries as different calls were made over the years. There were few exceptions to this increased level of interest.
The areas of research/study represented by projects are as wide as the individuals participating in them are numerous. Action lines under Framework Programme III (Telematic Systems in Areas of General Interest) include:
Action lines under Framework Programme IV (Telematic Applications of Common Interest) include:
Certainly, these statistics will reward more detailed reading for anyone interested in European research in the library sector. They will be quite an "eye-opener" for those who, mistakenly, think that little research and still less co-operative research is taking place across Europe.
They are presented in three different sections. The first provides an overview of library activities under both Framework Programmes. The second and third parts are devoted, respectively, to the detailed data related to each of the two Programmes.
Christine Dugdale
ResIDe Electronic Library
University of the West of England
Email: Christine.Dugdale@uwe.ac.uk
URL: <http://www.uwe.ac.uk/library/itdev/reside/>
Tel: 0117 965 6261 ext 3646
Christine Dugdale manages the ResIDe Electronic Library at the University of the West of England, Bristol.
For citation purposes:
Dugdale, C., "European Commission Library Research, 1990-98",
Exploit Interactive, issue 3, October 1999.
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/ec-statistics/>
Ian Peacock of Netcraft looks at the development of Web based e-commerce in countries in the European Union (EU). By monitoring the extent of e-commerce in the EU and in other comparable regions, an idea of the position of the EU within the global e-commerce arena can be obtained. Then looking at the distribution of e-commerce within the EU, we can identify the key players within e-Europe. This article does not attempt to provide explanation for the results, an analysis of which is likely to involve economic, political and geographical factors.
The approach used in the survey is to take the number of secure servers in a region as indicative of the number of electronic commerce sites in that region. This approach to estimating the extent of e-commerce has been adopted by a number of other surveys [1] and [2].
Server counts are presented as 'raw counts' on a regional basis and also as the corresponding per-capita metric. Both measurements have been used as estimators of regional e-commerce revenues. The economic significance of these different measurements is left to the interpretation of the reader. We implicitly assume that a majority of e-commerce per region is conducted within that region. An estimation of e-commerce revenue flows on an inter-district basis would make an interesting future analysis.
The introductory section What is e-commerce? provides a background for the article, and is not intended as a full introduction to electronic commerce and the many issues that it raises.
For starters, e-commerce is a resonating buzzword. Its very visible presence and growth on the Web, and publicity from the likes of IBM [3] advertising campaigns, has perpetuated the term, if not the concept, to almost household status. But the concept of e-commerce (or e-business) has been with us for some time; a major industrial country processes some 5-10% of business transactions electronically - but this is a precious slice, accounting for 85-90% of the total monetary value of the transactions.
A broad definition of e-commerce is the use of telecommunications and computers to facilitate the trade of goods and services. From this definition, e-commerce emerged in the 1960s, with automated payment systems and telephone services. Since then, e-business such as telephone banking, credit card services, fax orders and EDI have been developed, culminating recently with the use of the Web and the Internet. The kind of e-commerce supported by the Web is often called e-tailing and embodies the sales media, such as virtual storefronts, virtual malls and browseable product catalogs, as well as the mechanisms for placing orders.
Electronic commerce has been growing, and the ease of accessibility of the Web as a medium and its interactive nature has led to a recent surge in the number of sites conducting electronic business (trading online). This is consumer marketing based e-commerce, and there are many benefits including:
Such is the confidence in the benefits of Web e-commerce that in early 1999 the projected e-commerce revenues for e-business was billions of dollars, and stocks of companies which could make a name in e-commerce rocketed. Dell [4] is often cited as an example, who reported orders of a million dollars per day as early as 1997.
However, Web e-commerce give rise to a number of issues, not limited to regulation, legislation and encryption. One issue receiving a lot of attention is the payment mechanism: how should consumers pay for their goods, and will the payment transaction be secure? This is a very wide subject that covers standards such as SET [5] and proprietary solutions, such as Microsoft's Merchant Server [6]. For the purpose of this article it is important to know that credit cards are the most popular method of payment, with credit card numbers being transferred over a secure Web connection.
Netscape developed the SSL protocol [7] to provide transport layer encryption. The most common application of SSL is https over TCP/IP - HTTP over an encrypted transport layer link. https is the secure 'tunnel' through which customers credit card details are transferred when shopping on the Web. Since credit payments account for the majority of online payments, it is natural to use counts of SSL servers (secure servers) per geographic region, as a metric for establishing the extent of e-commerce in that region.
Since the important search engines, such as AltaVista [8] do not currently index https sites, there are few ways to assess the extent of SSL usage. However my company Netcraft [9], a UK based consultancy, undertake a monthly SSL survey which examines the use of encrypted transactions on the Web through extensive automated exploration. Interested parties may subscribe to the survey [10], which is produced monthly. The figures used in this article are reproduced with the permission of Netcraft. The data plotted in the charts is a snapshot from Netcraft's August 1999 survey. Charts illustrating development over time cover the period August 1998 to August 1999.
The geographical mapping of server to country are made via the country field of the X509 certificate received from the server. Readers interested in examining these certificates for an arbitrary secure server may do so at Netcraft's site [11].
Figure 1 shows the raw number of SSL servers in five key regions, including the EU.
 Figure 1: Secure Servers Per Country, Regional Breakdown |
Figure 2 shows the same metrics per capita.
 Figure 2: Secure Servers Per Country Per Capita, Regional Breakdown |
As both figures show, the United States is well ahead of other regions. This probably isn't a surprise for most readers. Respected estimates of e-commerce revenues agree that the e-commerce revenue of the US is well ahead of most other countries. According to figure 1, we would expect the EU to have the second largest revenue from e-commerce. Figure 2 however, shows an interesting transform on the data of figure 1, and that e-commerce revenue spread over the population promotes Australia and New Zealand to profit second best from e-commerce, pushing the EU into third place.
An inspection of both charts shows that all regions apart from the EU improve their position relative to the US under the per-capita measurement. We can see that roughly, the EU fares the same against the US regardless of measurement type.
The growth in e-commerce in these regions over the interval August 1998 to August 1999 is shown in Figures 3 and 4 (the per-capita version of figure 3).
 |
| Figure 3 & Figure 4: Growth in e-commerce over selected regions |
Although both charts will have the same shape, both versions have been supplied to illustrate the different rankings that occur under the different measurements. The change in the position of Australia and New Zealand is markedly illustrated. Note that the relative positions of the different countries remains the same over the 12 months of measurement, and that there is virtually no observable crossover (one region overtaking another). It would be interesting to monitor the gap between these different regions and how it is changing over time. The dip seen over January to February does not likely reflect a dip in global e-commerce. This is probably related to more limited internet connectivity at the time of the February survey.
On the basis of the charts, it appears the the top three growth rates have been experienced by the US, Australia and New Zealand, and the EU.
Figure 5 shows a breakdown of number of secure servers per EU member country.
 Figure 5: Secure Servers Per EU Country |
Figure 6 is the per capita counterpart.
Figure 6: Secure Servers Per 1M population per EU Country |
A glance at Figure 5 may lead us to believe that the UK is the US e-commerce equivalent of the UK. However, it does not remain in position in the per-capita measurement shown in Figure 6 (which the US does above). The two charts present very different views - especially noticeable is the rise of Luxembourg at last position in Figure 5 and at the top in Figure 6. The gap between the top three countries of Figure 5, the UK, Germany and France is lengthened in Figure 6 from 0 to 2. Only the Netherlands, Greece and Portugal appear to have (roughly) similar positions in both charts. The trend of Figure 5 showing the West-most EU countries at the top is also changed in Figure 6.
Note that the ratios of the bars in Figure 6 are generally smaller than in Figure 5, i.e. that the per-capita measurement appears to equalise the differences between countries somewhat. The large gaps of Figure 5 ([UK,DE], [FR], [IT,ES,SE] etc) appear less severe in Figure 6. This is also noticeable in Figure 8, where countries are much less bunched together than Figure 7.
Figure 7 and 8 show the growth of e-commerce in each EU member country.
 Figure 7: Growth in e-commerce per EU country |
Figure 8: Growth in e-commerce per 1M population per EU country |
Notice that all EU countries are experiencing growth in e-commerce, the rates of which are changing. From Figure 7 it can be seen that the gap between the UK and Germany is decreasing. Figure 7 also shows that these countries are experiencing a growth in secure servers in excess of the EU average. A number of crossovers can be seen in Figure 8, where the extent of e-commerce in some countries has overtaken others (locating the countries is left as an exercise for the non-colourblind reader).
The EU is a relatively well-developed global hub for e-commerce. This is illustrated by its high ranking (second place after the US) for raw server counts and dropping down to third place (after Australia and New Zealand) for the per-capita measurement. The rate of growth of e-commerce within the EU is steady (as can be seen from Figure 3 and Figure 4), though behind the US and Australia/New Zealand.
All EU member countries have some e-commerce presence, and these are also growing individually. As can be seen from Figure 8, Luxembourg has one of the highest growth rates. In terms of raw servers, the UK comes top, closely followed by Germany, and the gap between the two countries is slowly decreasing. France has significantly less servers, but comes in at third place. The per-capita measures for EU countries paints an entirely different picture, with Luxembourg being elevated from last place (with the lowest number of SSL servers) to top place. Many other countries also switch places. In Figure 6, the UK drops to fourth place, while Germany drops to seventh place.
Watching the development of e-commerce, both globally and within Europe is a fascinating task that observes this relatively new and significant phase in the evolution of the World Wide Web. E-commerce now affects the personal lives of many, in addition to changing the way that many businesses operate. These changes have also given rise to entirely business areas. Observing the future development of e-commerce looks set to be very exciting, as factors such as legislation, new protocols and telecoms development take effect. E-commerce is an increasingly important concept and its development is significant from many angles, be it personal, technological or commercial.
Ian Peacock works for Netcraft:
a networking consultancy based in Bath, England. It is well known worldwide for its
Web Server Survey, which is widely considered a primary empirical metric for the
number of web sites and the relative popularity of web server software on the internet.
Clients include IBM, Hewlett Packard, Sun Microsystems, and Microsoft. |
For citation purposes:
Ian Peacock, "E-Commerce in Europe",
Exploit Interactive, issue 3, October 1999
URL: <http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/ecommerce/>
|
Issue Home | Editorial | Features | Regular Columns | News and Events | Et cetera | ||
|
| ||
| Go to Top |
A UKOLN Service. Contact Us. Copyright © 1999  |
Last Updated: 25 October 1999 |