The Cover PagesThe OASIS Cover Pages: The Online Resource for Markup Language Technologies
Advanced Search
Site Map
CP RSS Channel
Contact Us
Sponsoring CP
About Our Sponsors

Cover Stories
Articles & Papers
Press Releases

XML Query

XML Applications
General Apps
Government Apps
Academic Apps

Technology and Society
Tech Topics
Related Standards
Last modified: July 13, 2009
XML Daily Newslink. Monday, 13 July 2009

A Cover Pages Publication
Provided by OASIS and Sponsor Members
Edited by Robin Cover

This issue of XML Daily Newslink is sponsored by:

Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) Version 0.62c
Ethan Gur-esh, Ryan McVeigh, Al Brown (eds), OASIS Working Draft

Members of the OASIS Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) Technical Committee have published a Version 0.62c Working Draft for the CMIS specification. The ZIP package contains the Part I Domain Model document, together with XML schemas and the Part II documents (ReSTful AtomPub Binding and Web Services Binding).

"The Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) standard defines a domain model (in this document) and set of bindings, such as Web Service and REST/Atom that can be used by applications to work with one or more Content Management repositories/systems. The CMIS interface is designed to be layered on top of existing Content Management systems and their existing programmatic interfaces. It is not intended to prescribe how specific features should be implemented within those CM systems, nor to exhaustively expose all of the CM system's capabilities through the CMIS interfaces. Rather, it is intended to define a generic/universal set of capabilities provided by a CM system and a set of services for working with those capabilities..." CMIS provides an interface for an application to access a Repository. To do so, CMIS specifies a core data model that defines the persistent information entities that are managed by the repository, and specifies a set of basic services that an application can use to access and manipulate these entities. In accordance with the CMIS objectives, this data model does not cover all the concepts that a full-function ECM repository typically supports. Specifically, transient entities (such as programming interface objects), administrative entities (such as user profiles), and extended concepts (such as compound or virtual document, work flow and business process, event and subscription) are not included. However, when an application connects to a CMIS service endpoint, the same endpoint MAY provide access to more than one CMIS repositories..."

Alfresco 3.2: Records, Email, Mobility, Extranets, and CMIS Support
Staff, Alfresco Software Announcement

"Alfresco Software, leader in open source enterprise content management (ECM), has announced the immediate availability for download of Alfresco Community Edition 3.2, unveiling a range of new features that continue to build on Alfresco's ability to deliver low-cost, innovative and interoperable open source ECM solutions. In addition to enabling mobile content management, streamlining email management and supporting open specifications and standards—including CMIS and IMAP—Alfresco Community 3.2 also lays the groundwork for records management support for U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) 5015.2 certification in September 2009.

Alfresco Community 3.2 offers full support (SOAP Web Services, REST and Query) for version 0.61 of the Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) specification, providing the most complete implementation of CMIS to date and allowing CMIS compliant clients and repositories to interoperate and share content across information silos...

Laying the groundwork for supporting Records Management (RM) in readiness for DoD 5015.2 certification in September 2009, Alfresco RM will enable companies to support the strict legal requirements needed to manage vital company information. Functionality will include metadata management, YUI-based forms, lifecycle management, CMIS-based query access, email capture, import/export facility and auditing..."

See also: CMIS references

W3C XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0 Facility Test
Sihem Amer-Yahia, Chavdar Botev, Stephen Buxton (et al, eds), W3C Technical Reports

W3C announced that the XSL and XML Query Working Groups have published version 1.0 of the XPath 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 Full Text Facility Test Suite, and are requesting that people with implementations report results. The Full Text Facility provides a standard way of searching by word or phrase across multilingual documents or data represented using the XPath and XQuery Data Model.

As a result of preliminary implementation experience, and to reflect comments received, the Candidate Recommendation for the Full Text Facility has also been republished: the new version incorporates editorial changes but also clarifies some ambiguities that had been reported. The Working Groups hope to move the document to Proposed Recommendation once more test results have been submitted. The XML Query and XSL Working Groups have also published an update of XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0 Use Cases.

Overview for Full-Text Search and XML: "As XML becomes mainstream, users expect to be able to search their XML documents. This requires a standard way to do full-text search, as well as structured searches, against XML documents. A similar requirement for full-text search led ISO to define the SQL/MM-FT standard. SQL/MM-FT defines extensions to SQL to express full-text searches providing functionality similar to that defined in this full-text language extension to XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0. XML documents may contain highly structured data (fixed schemas, known types such as numbers, dates), semi-structured data (flexible schemas and types), markup data (text with embedded tags), and unstructured data (untagged free-flowing text). Where a document contains unstructured or semi- structured data, it is important to be able to search using Information Retrieval techniques such as scoring and weighting. Full-text search is different from substring search in many ways: (1) a full-text search searches for tokens and phrases rather than substrings; (2) a full-text search will support language-based searches which substring search cannot; (3) full-text search must address the vagaries and nuances of language.."

See also: XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0 Candidate Recommendation

Microsoft Officially Names Geneva Identity Platform Project
John Fontana, Network World

Microsoft has unveiled the names of the pieces that will make up its single sign-on platform that was formerly named Geneva. Geneva Server, formerly called Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS) 2.0, will go back to the ADFS name. The Geneva Framework, formerly called Zermatt, will be called the Windows Identity Foundation, which matches naming conventions for other Windows sub-systems such as Windows Workflow Foundation and Windows Presentation Foundation...

The Geneva platform comprises three components and is the foundation for a claims-based access model and Security Token Service (STS) technology that Microsoft has been developing over the past few years as part of its industry effort to create a single identity system based on standard protocols...

The Geneva Framework is an extension to the .Net Framework 3.5 that helps developers more easily build applications that incorporate a claims-based identity model for authentication/authorization... The goal is to create a standards-based way to share "claims" and to connect with cloud-based services from Microsoft or other providers. Claims are a set of statements that identify a user and provide specific information such as title or purchasing authority. One of the most significant additions to Geneva Beta 2 was support for the SAML 2.0 protocol. Microsoft had supported the SAML token format as part of its Identity MetaSystem, which is the foundation of the Geneva project. The platform also supports WS-Federation, WS-Trust..."

See also: Geneva and Windows Identity Foundation

Is a National GIS on the Map?
Trudy Walsh, Government Computer News

Government has embraced geographic information systems so thoroughly that the 'G' in GIS might as well stand for government. U.S. Agencies big and small at the federal, state and local levels have long looked to GIS to make sense of data and how it integrates with location. But with improvements in mapping tools and Web-based applications, geospatial data is no longer the sole domain of engineers or researchers. Topographic maps with layered demographic, environmental and other data abound on the Web...

In recent years, the power of GIS has become increasingly apparent in disseminating a wide array of information visually, from pandemic data to congressional districts and flood zones. As GIS has become recognized as a powerful situational awareness tool, the idea of a developing a national GIS has also developed grass-roots support in government and industry. The concept of a national GIS has been floating around in various forms for perhaps fifteen years, according to Jack Dangermond, president and CEO of ESRI. Technology has now advanced to the point where a national GIS is doable... Dangermond is part of a 28-member group that's focused on the development of a national GIS, which he said will accomplish at least three things: better management of geographic data, imagery for the nation (once a year), and high-resolution images disseminated on the Web...

See also: ESRI's Building a National GIS

Architecture for Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications
Richard Barnes, Matt Lepinski (et al., eds), IETF Internet Draft

IETF has released an initial version -00 Internet Draft for An Architecture for Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications.

Document Abstract: "Location-based services such as navigation applications, emergency services, management of equipment in the field) need geographic location information about Internet hosts, their users, and other related entities. These applications need to securely gather and transfer location information for location services, and at the same time protect the privacy of the individuals involved..."

This document describes a standardized privacy- and security-focused architecture for location- based services in the Internet: the Geopriv architecture. The central component of the Geopriv architecture is the location object, which is used to convey both location information about an individual or device and user-specified privacy rules governing that location information. As location information moves through its life cycle—positioning, distribution, and use by its ultimate recipient(s) -- Geopriv provides mechanisms to secure the integrity and confidentiality of location objects and to ensure that location information is only transmitted in compliance with the user's privacy rules.

The goals of this document are two-fold: First, the architecture described revises and expands on the basic Geopriv Requirements, in order to clarify how these privacy concerns and the Geopriv architecture apply to use cases that have arisen since the publication of those documents. Second, this document provides a general introduction to Geopriv and Internet location-based services, and is useful as a good first document for readers new to Geopriv..."

See also: the IETF Geographic Location/Privacy (GEOPRIV) Working Group Status Pages

Requirements, Terminology, and Framework for Exigent Communications
Steve Norreys, Hannes Tschofenig, Henning Schulzrinne (eds), IETF Internet Draft

A revised specification has been published for the Internet Draft Requirements, Terminology, and Framework for Exigent Communications. With the usage of the term 'Exigent Communications' "this document aims to generalize the concept of conveying alerts to IP-based systems and at the same time to re-define the actors that participate in the messaging communication. More precisely, exigent communications is defined as: 'Communication that requirs immediate action or remedy. Information about the reason for action and details about the steps that have to be taken are provided in the alert message'...

Three types of communication models are envisioned: (1) Alerts may be addressed to all individuals within a certain geographic area. (2) Alerts need to be delivered to dedicated end points via unicast messaging (subway stations or electronic bill boards. (3) Those two models illustrate a push communication whereas the third model represents a subscription model—where opt-in is used to provide further information about the type of alerts that the recipient is interested in.

Traditionally, emergency alerting has used church bells, sirens, loudspeakers, radio and television to warn citizens and to provide information. However, techniques, such as sirens and bells, provide limited information content; loud speakers cover only very small areas and are often hard to understand, even for those not hearing impaired or fluent in the local language. Radio and television offer larger information volume, but are hard to target geographically and do not work well to address the "walking wounded" or other pedestrians. Both are not suitable for warnings, as many of those needing the information will not be listening or watching at any given time, particularly during work/school and sleep hours...

See also: XML and Emergency Management


XML Daily Newslink and Cover Pages sponsored by:

IBM Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Oracle Corporation
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

XML Daily Newslink:
Newsletter Archive:
Newsletter subscribe:
Newsletter unsubscribe:
Newsletter help:
Cover Pages:

Hosted By
OASIS - Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards

Sponsored By

IBM Corporation
ISIS Papyrus
Microsoft Corporation
Oracle Corporation


XML Daily Newslink
Receive daily news updates from Managing Editor, Robin Cover.

 Newsletter Subscription
 Newsletter Archives
Globe Image

Document URI:  —  Legal stuff
Robin Cover, Editor: