Interesting post from Tim Hand got me to thinking about this one. From Tim’s perspective, the standards arena seems to have stalled a bit (if I’m reading correctly). When compared to what’s happening in Web 2.0 with new services and technologies just powering ahead. Try to keep up with what’s happening in the world of mashups alone and it’s staggering. There is interoperability (of a kind) everywhere. Developers are connecting up all sorts of apps, data sources etc to deliver new, innovative services. In doing this they are not dependent on cumbersome, complex standards. We recently did some research on standards in the area of ePortfolios and one of the major findings from that was the impact that Web 2.0 was having in that area. It was hard to find ePortfolio implementations (other than vendor software) that were using standards such as IMS ePortfolio but many of the implementers were interested in using RSS and other lightweight specifications in their implementations. They could easily consume content from other sources and also publish/syndicate their content very easily. Simple specs and simple services enable them to include functions from other sites into their ePortfolios (eg using Flickr to hold images of your work). Students also saw services such as myspace and Facebook as better places for them to have their ePortfolio (there were some interesting variations on this though).
So what does this mean for the formal world of standards and specifications. The very nature of the standards process is a slow one. A great deal of work goes into the development of a standard/specification which involves development work, collaboration, reviews, (public) comment, ratification and so on, all of which takes time. Time unfortunately is not ‘Standards’ best friend in the frenetic, fast pace of the Web 2.0 world. As the rate of change increases in both speed and sheer number of new services, it seems to me that the slow paced standards process faces a real challenge to keep up.
technorati tags: standards, Web 2.0,ePortfolio
4 Comments
Jerry
Its not just the frustration with engaging on the Web 2 standards agenda, but also the lack of momentum and fractured ‘ownership’ on the core Web 1 agendas.
Hi Tim,
From what I understand there is concern on some of the more legacy standards as to what is happening with the IP etc in them and how ‘open’ some of them actually are (or will be). I too am keen to see what happens in this area.
Cheers,
Jerry
True, Jerry, that it’s hard for standards to keep up with developments in web2.0 however it’s likely that the portfolio services that will have longevity will users are likely to be those based around standards ie where you can port content from one environment to another and your porfolio becomes part of your lifelong learning toolset. We just need to build one.
Hi Jen,
This is where I think we need to throw out standards like IMS ePortfolio and use simple specs like RSS and Atom in portfolio services that involve consumption or syndication. Some of the existing services are so complex that it makes ‘real’ interoperability difficult to achieve. For example, we have developed the employability skills ePortfolio using IMS ePortfolio. I think it was great in that it provided structure and a high degree of rigor in the development process but it is only truly interoperable with other ePortfolios that have implemented on the same version of IMS ePortfolio (unfortunately a draft version) and are addressing employability skills in exactly the same context as we had. If they are addressing some other context, the meaning in the data will be lost and while you may be able to move it around, it may not make any sense to the portfolio services that are consuming it. Lightweight specs make no such pretensions and are more widely accepted so I am keen to explore a number of ‘portfolio services’ that can be aggregated into a portfolio ‘engine’ if you like. Then we can have portfolio mashups!
Cheers,
Jerry
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[…] In the past I have discussed the need for simple to implement standards and concentrated on specifications such as RSS, Atom and microformats. The Learning Futures article references hResume, an interesting format used by LinkedIn. Compare the definition for that with a heavy duty specification and see which one you would rather implement. […]
[…] In the past I have discussed the need for simple to implement standards and concentrated on specifications such as RSS, Atom and microformats. The Learning Futures article references hResume, an interesting format used by LinkedIn. Compare the definition for that with a heavy duty specification and see which one you would rather implement. […]
Post a Comment