Proposal: Chat and Discussion Interchange Datamodel
This is a proposed data model that I’ve been working on in the context of an ISO/IEC e-learning standards workgroup. Such proposals and drafts are not generally posted publically, here goes.
Here’s the scope statement:
This standard provides a data model for the interchange of communicative and related information generated through the set-up and use of text-based, synchronous (chat) and a-synchronous (discussion) communication technologies. This data model would allow communication forum contributions and their attributes to be represented in a vendor-independent format for interchange, storage, retrieval or analysis by a variety of systems. It would accomplish the same thing for the set-up and design of these communication forums, representing the names, access conditions and other parameters for chat rooms or discussion forums.
The purpose of this data model is to allow data generated in one chat or discussion system to be utilized in another chat or discussion system. Typically this data would not be exchanged from a system of one type (e.g. synchronous chat) to a system of another type (e.g. asynchronous discussion). Also, this data would typically not be exchanged between systems while a discussion or chat is being conducted; this standard does not currently define an API or other mechanism that would allow users to access and control data and behaviours in two systems simultaneously.
I did not even to bother reading your proposed standard. Why? Using the word format to write a standard makes me question your committment to standardisation.
Comment by Steven King — July 13, 2005 @ 3:39 am
Hi Norm,
Scott here - I saw you’d posted this data model. Thanks for getting this out in public, I really needed to know about this!
So, why don’t you like the existing IETF Atom and IETF XMPP specifications for representing forum posts and chat transcripts? They also provide the APIs for submitting, editing and removing entries. Why is there a need for a completely new data model for this? In fact, I don’t think there is a need for an ISO standard here at all, as this is very well covered by IETF already.
You also mention IMS LIP, which is probably the last thing I’d use to represent an agent in a chat or forum - far better to reference an online FOAF or a vCard, or possibly even EduPerson LDAP attributes. If you want to use IMS, Enterprise at least has the virtue of being briefer and more up to date. Atom simply uses “Author” and “Contributor” in the same manner as Dublin Core. This is probably appropriate; such elements can be extended to link with canonical personal metadata via URL reference (for example).
For setup and provisioning (as opposed to archiving or transfer) of forums and chats I’d also look at OASIS SPML for provisioning and XACML for representation of authorization rules. This is quite a problem area, and I’m not sure it should be tackled in the same chunk of work as moving forum posts around, which is a far simpler proposition. Runtime activation of services that involve collaboration is not trivial.
Basically, I think everything you’re looking for is already “out there” but needs pulling together. I’d argue that ISO is not the appropriate starting point for such work, but rather trialling with an active user and developer community would be more suitable; if the approach is proven to be workable and of broad interest, then submission to formal standardization could subsequently take place.
Bye for now!
- Scott
Comment by Scott Wilson — August 13, 2005 @ 7:23 am