Jim Farmer, JA-SIG Collaborative7 November 2002, Tokyo

Japan Education and Research Conference

Open Standards, The Next Wave

JER

C 2

00

2Permission to reproduce

Copyright ©2002 instructional media + magic, inc. All rights reserved.

This digital document may be reproduced and distributed to others provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included in all such copies. This content itself may not be modified in any way. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the author, or successors or assigns.

Standard permission incorporated into im+m presentations and documents.

JER

C 2

00

2Waves of Change

• 1981 – The IBM Personal Computer Standard hardware components

• 1981 – TCP/IP Protocols published Internet(1982 Sun Microsystems founded)

• 1993 – Mosaic browser, University of Illinois World Wide Web

JER

C 2

00

2The Web Services wave

• 1998 – XML specification Tagged data(1986 – ISO SGML specification)

• 1999 – SOAP data transport”Web Services” business messaging

JER

C 2

00

2Generations of systems

• Standalone applications Where we have been

• Enterprise systems (with portals) Where we are

• Distributed systems (with Web Services)Where we are going

Mark Resmer, Chief Technology Officer, eCollegeUniversity of California Education Technology

Standards Workshop, July 30, 2002

JER

C 2

00

2Successful technology

• Simple, limited capability• High benefit to cost• Leadership to “cross the chasm” to

widespread implementation• Persistence to maturity and industry

acceptance—years of effort______________________

1996 – Java Language Specification, first edition

JER

C 2

00

2Web services defined

“Web services are a set of standards for how systems connect to each other, and communicate information. It’s an extension of a distributed computing framework, which provides an open standard that most software vendors support.”

Chandra VekatapathMarket Manager, Web Services, IBM Corporation,

TheBusiness Integrator, Second Quarter 2002, pp. 5-11

JER

C 2

00

2Web services as standards

Tagged data XML

Data communications TCP/IP

Data transport SOAP

Discovery WSDL

Directory UDDI

Remote portal WSRP, JSR 168

Content feed RDF-based RSS

JER

C 2

00

2Why XML and SOAP?

“[XML and SOAP] will become a widely implemented ‘standard’ because they are simple.”

Barry WalshUniversity of Indiana

at the FSA CIO Update ConferenceArlington, Virginia May 8, 2002

JER

C 2

00

2XML “family”

• XHTML• XLink, XPath, XPointer• XForms• XSL, XSLT• XML Signature, XML Encryption, XML

Key Management• XML Query• XML Schema• RDF Metadata

JER

C 2

00

2SOAP data transport supports...

• Real-time data transport • HTTP or HTTPS• TCP or UDP using Microsoft’s proposed

WS-Routing• Batch data exchange

• FTP or Secure FTP• E-mail data exchange

• SMTPSee Jonathan Chawke,

“Making Apache SOAP Invocations using SMTP,”Apache Foundation, 9 March 2001

JER

C 2

00

2The market perspective

“Portals and Web Services are single greatest advance in terms of how we deploy technology and use it—that’s the rationalization behind the enormous interest in portals.”

Tom Koulopoulos, President, Delphi GroupApplication Development Trends: October, 2002

JER

C 2

00

2Web Services benefit

“The promise of Web services lies in its ability to resolve the differences among shared, networked applications. Applications from different vendors, of various vintages, written in different languages, running on disparate platforms, easily communicate and cooperate, resolving their differences to act in concert.”

Carl Jacobsen, University of Delaware EDUCAUSE Review March/April 2002

JER

C 2

00

2Components architecture

“Software has become so big that no company can do everything alone anymore.” “… the industry must adopt standards that would enable a variety of different software vendors to provide the parts needed to quickly build a sophisticated software system.”

Hasso Plattner, CEO SAP AG at the JavaOne Conference in San Francisco, March 2002, as reported by Reuters,

“Software's future is in components, SAP chief says,” March 27, 2002

JER

C 2

00

2The business case

Originally, the exchange of data with others.Now, integration between disparate application, disparate computer systems, disparate operating systems, disparate programming languages—the Enterprise Application Integration EAI bus.

___________________________________________

”Getting access to stove-piped data is the primary reason for implementing Web services.”

Uttam NasrsuGIGA Information Group

At the FSA CIO Update ConferenceArlington, Virginia, May 8, 2002

JER

C 2

00

2Value of Web services technology

Open standards Web service projects are taking one-fourth the time and costing one-fifth comparable projects using traditional technology. Performance is 2 to 10 times better than expected.• HFC Bank - IFX credit card application using XML,

SOAP and XSLT• Deutsche Bank Bauspar - FixML security

transaction integration using XML messages and XSL transformations

• Hypo Vereinsbank - Integration

Based on presentations at the XSLT [Invitational] Conference

Oxford, University, April 8-9, 2001

JER

C 2

00

2Web Services implemented

Converge Magazine Portal Symposium Oct 2002

Web Services: How does it do it?Web Services: How does it do it?

Loosely coupled – “forgiving” interfaces rather than traditionally strict integration requirement of our legacy systems, including our “new” legacy systems

Self-describing and self-announcing: all specifications related to the use and behavior of a service are part of the service itself

Applications may invoke remote processes or applications as if they were a part of the invoking application

Specific technologies to: build, publish,and relate business and learning components across the network

Barry Walsh, University of Indiana

JER

C 2

00

2Emerging strategy

• Java for applications, enterprise infrastructure

• “Web Services” for integration• Mixed environment• Between enterprises

JER

C 2

00

2

Aut

hent

icat

ion

Ser

vice

Aut

hori

zati

on S

ervi

ce

ER

P

Lib

rary

Lea

rnin

g M

anag

emen

t

Decomposition of legacy systems

Common Solutions Group, September 19, 2002

JER

C 2

00

2Reconstructed legacy

systems

Aut

hent

icat

ion

Ser

vice

Aut

hori

zati

on S

ervi

ce

ER

P

Lib

rary

Lea

rnin

g M

anag

emen

t

Common Solutions Group, September 19, 2002

JER

C 2

00

2Emerging practices

Standard Use Plan Wait

XMLSOAPWSDLUDDI

WS-SecurityWS-RoutingWS-ReferralWS-Attachments

JER

C 2

00

2Java and “Web Services”

Java“Web

Services”Functionality Rich Limited

Scope of use Enterprise In and between enterprises

Market acceptance

Divided Industry as acompromise

Support of “Web Services”

Complete Depends on software supplier

JER

C 2

00

2Web Services security

“Until we get key distribution and management schemes that people can understand and use, Web services security is speeding toward a brick wall.”

Jon Udell, “Dueling toolkits: Microsoft vs. IBM, InfoWorld, Sep 9, 200, Issue 36

JER

C 2

00

2The facets of security

• Confidentiality – communicated in secret

• Integrity – unaltered, genuine• Anonymity – having a name or

identity that is unknown or concealed.

• Non-repudiation – validity of identification of the parties and the date and time of the message, and integrity of the contents

JER

C 2

00

2Certificate Validation: XKMS• The X-KISS specification defines a protocol for a

Trust service that resolves public key information contained in XML-SIG elements. … The underlying PKI may be based upon … X.509/PKIX, SPKI or PGP.

• The X-KRSS specification defines a protocol for a web service that accepts registration of public key information.

• Both protocols are defined in terms of • XML Schema Language• (SOAP) v1.1• Web Services Definition Language v1.0 [WSDL].

XML Key Management Specification (XKMS 2.0), W3C Working Draft, March 18, 2002.

JER

C 2

00

2And now SAML

Security Assertion Markup LanguageThe set of specifications describing security assertions that are encoded in XML, profiles for attaching the assertions to various protocols and frameworks, the request/response protocol used to obtain the assertions, and bindings of this protocol to various transfer protocols (for example, SOAP and HTTP).

Security Services Technical Committee, Glossary for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language

(SAML), Draft, January 10, 2002

JER

C 2

00

2Industry content standards

Industry Standards

Financial ServicesFinancial Reporting

ebXML compliant IFXXBRL

Student loansFinancial aid

CommonLine XMLCommon Record

Human Resources HR-XML

Academic Records PESC and CaliforniaCommunity Colleges

Library (In discussion)

JER

C 2

00

2Process content standards

SAMLXACML

Security AssertionsSecurity Access Control

WSUIPresentation

WSRPRemote Portlet

WSFL and WfMLWork flow

StandardFunction

JER

C 2

00

2“Best of Breed” strategy

“With Web services, best of breed becomes more feasible.”“Web services will make best of breed more cost effective.”

Rick Bergquist, CTO of PeopleSoftas quoted by Heather Harreld and Mark Jones in “Chasing suite success,” InfoWorld, Nr. 24, June

17, 2002.

JA-SIG CollaborativeWill it make a difference?

JER

C 2

00

2JA-SIG

• Java In AdministrationSpecial Interest Group• www.jasig.org

• Conferences biannually• Clearing house

• https://www.mis4.udel.edu/JasigCH/

• Collaborative projects

JER

C 2

00

2JA-SIG goals

• uPortal will support open standards applications

• JA-SIG channels (portlets) will run in open standards portals

• Content is transferable between application systems, especially learning objects and digital library holdings

JER

C 2

00

2uPortal with Tree / Column

JER

C 2

00

2Portal with RSS channels

JER

C 2

00

2uPortal with eTranscript

JER

C 2

00

2University of Nagoya uPortal

JER

C 2

00

2JA-SIG’s uPortal and Web Services

• XML-based• Separate data from representation

Use XSL transformations

• Support authentication and authorization API (MIT’s OKI +)• Kerberos, SAML, Liberty, Shibboleth? PKI?

• Distributed content management• Remote channel (portlet)

• WSRP, JSR 168

• SOAP/WS-Security/SAML channels• University to government student loans• California community colleges eTranscript

JER

C 2

00

2JA-SIG uPortal installations

JA-SIG uPortal SitesPreliminary survey Oct 2002

0

10

20

30

40

Production Development Evaluation

Num

ber

of I

nsta

llatio

ns

JER

C 2

00

2JA-SIG uPortal installations

Location of uPortal InstallationsPreliminary survey October 2002

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

United States

Canada

United Kingdom

Australia

Sweden

Japan

Hong Kong

Number of Installations

JER

C 2

00

2JA-SIG uPortal installations

JA-SIG uPortal InstallationsPreliminary survey October 2002

0 20 40 60 80 100

Primary

Secondary

Postsecondary

Commercial

Government

Number of Installations

JER

C 2

00

2Gleason’s “Transitive Trust”

SAML Assertions

JER

C 2

00

2Authentication and authorization

Access Provider Data Provider

Login & Password

TLSAuthentication

SAML Assertion

College Target

ebXML Security Profile 3

Non-persistent confidentiality and non-persistent authentication

JER

C 2

00

2Why not open standards?

• Investment in change• Risk of error in standard selection

• Unavailability of needed business functionality

JER

C 2

00

2Why open standards?

• Preserves future options; choices of software tools

• Sharply reduces software maintenance

• Leads to commodity pricing• Facilitates data exchanges with

others• Lowers training costs

JER

C 2

00

2Early adopters are now …

• Implementing open-standards infrastructure

• Integrating legacy and new applications only using Web Services technology

• Requiring or giving preference to new applications that comply with standards

• Encouraging current software suppliers to produce Web Services enabled applications

• Supporting the development of standards

JER

C 2

00

2Observations

Successful portal/Web Services implementations typically have:• Top level commitment to simultaneously

reduce unit cost of administration and improve on-line services.

• CIO sharply aligned with business objectives.

• Re-engineered business processes.• IT staff retrained in the new technologies.

Based on presentations by the Universities of British Columbia

and Nottingham, and comments about Linkoping University reported from the June 27-28, 2002

Swedish Higher Education Portals Conference at Portals 2002, Nottingham, United Kingdom, July 1, 2002

The end

jim farmerjxf@immagic.com

JER

C 2

00

2

JER

C 2

00

2

JER

C 2

00

2

JER

C 2

00

2