Salcedo BSI and ISO STS
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,243 views
BSI has a long history with standards development and publishing that began in the early 20th century. It began experimenting with XML in the 2000s and adopted the ISO STS in 2014. This resulted in various business, technology, people, and process challenges in transitioning to the new schema. However, benefits included increased automation, speed, flexibility, and opportunities to develop knowledge products. Going forward, BSI remains actively involved in NISO STS development and sees opportunities in competition while still supporting a single standard for the ISO ecosystem.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (17)
Similar to Salcedo BSI and ISO STS
Similar to Salcedo BSI and ISO STS (20)
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Salcedo BSI and ISO STS
- 1. Adoption and adaptation – BSI and ISO STS 12/10/2017 1 Ivan Salcedo, Enterprise Content Architect Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved
- 2. Where we are 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 2
- 3. 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 3 A brief history of BSI 2000’s 2010’s ISO 9001 published 1960’s ISO 14001 published 1990’s BS 7750 the worlds first environmental standard published 1970’s BS 5750 the worlds first quality standard published 1903 BSI testing labs open 1950’s First committee meeting 1901 1920’s 1940’s
- 4. An equally brief history of XML at BSI 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 4 2006 - Early business cases and experiments 2009 - Creation of BSI SDS 2010 - Shadowing ISO work on what would become ISO STS ~2012 – Eurocodes Plus launched (BSI SDS) 2013 - PAS 2030 launched (BSI SDS) 2014 – Compliance Navigator launched (Strategic shift to ISO STS) 2015 – BSI Essentials launched (BSI SDS) 2015 – Legacy frontmatter conversion projects + support creation of NISO STS work item 2017 – Smart Content production platform Compliance Navigator Metadata Manager
- 5. How we got here 12/10/2017 5Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved Adoption and adaptation – BSI and ISO STS
- 6. Adoption and adaptation – BSI and ISO STS 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 6 • Business challenges • Technology challenges • People challenges • Process challenges • Benefits • … hopes for the future BSI Essentials 9001 XML, ISO STS and our journey towards a ‘smart content’ solution provider
- 7. Business Challenges – Generic 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 7 Some questions never change… • What do our customers want? • How do we change to meet these needs? • Are we publishers, service providers, or product creators? • Where are we going and how will we get there – ie what is our digital transformation roadmap? • And remind me, what is XML …?
- 8. Business challenges - specific 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 8 • If XML is the future, then how do we use it? • How do we develop XML-based products? • What do we need to be an XML-Early or XML-First publisher? • Coverage – breadth or depth? • Adoption, creation or conversion? • What schema shall we use? (eg BSI presentation to the Nordic XML consortium in 2011 ‘’User Requirements and the ISO XML Schema’)
- 9. Technology challenges - XML 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 9 • “Isn’t XML dead yet?” • Understanding XML is relatively simple • Mastering XML is relatively hard
- 10. XML ≠ XML Smart Content <note type=“reminder”> <to>Peter</to> <from>Sue</from> <body>Don’t forget the coffee!</body> </note> Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved. <doc> <title>Reminder!</title> <p>to: Peter</p> <p>from: Sue</p> <p>Don’t forget the coffee!</p> </doc> Structured Content – Semantic markup enhances the value of XML Smart Content models knowledge NOT a specific presentation.
- 11. XML – a matter of style? Copyright © 2016 BSI. All rights reserved. Document - Front sections - /standard/front/sec Summary: Generally consist of Foreword sections (of which multiple can appear in a single document) and, less frequently, Introduction sections or informative sections of various types. Predominantly text with mid-low rates of complex structures. Average no. of Front sections per document: Mean: 4.2 Median: 4 Mode: 5 Highest no. of Front sections in a single document: 11 Lowest no. of Front sections in a single document: 1 Longest title in a Front section: 48 characters Most common construct sequences No. Sequence (element names in order of appearance) Freque ncy 1 title p 15.5% 2 title p p p p p 15.0% 3 title p p p p 10.5% 4 title p p list p p p p p 5.4% 5 title p p p 5.3% 6 title p p p p p p 4.9% 7 table-wrap 4.3% 8 title p p p p p p p 4.1% 9 title p p p p p p p list 3.1% Most common constructs 10 title p p p p p p list 2.8% No. Element name 1 p 2 title 3 list 4 array Noteworthy outlier sequences 5 table-wrap Sequence (element names in order of appearance) Frequency 6 label title p p list p p p p p sec 0.04% 7 non-normative- note label title sec sec sec sec 0.04% 8 sec label graphic graphic 0.02% 9 fig 10 graphic
- 12. XML – not all ISO STS is created equal… Copyright © 2016 BSI. All rights reserved. Inbound XML
- 13. Snapshot from 2015 – XML ‘cohorts’ 12/10/2017 CEN legacy conversion XML CLC legacy conversion XML A1 - ISO legacy conversion (Innodata) ISO operational conversion 2012 A2 - ISO eXtyles conversion post 2012 BSI Compliance Navigator legacy documents CEN eXtyles XML A3 - BSI Compliance Navigator standards A: ISOSTS BSI Eurocodes+ standards B: BSISDS A1 – ISO legacy ~12,000 A2 – ISO eXtyles originated ~2,000 A3 – BSI Compliance Navigator (includes some based on A2) ~2,000 A4 – ISO eXtyles originated ~500 A5 – CEN legacy conversion ~1,000 A6 – ISO operational conversion (period between legacy conversion and adoption of eXtyles) Unknown A7 – Non-standards content for Compliance Navigator ~100 A8 – CLC legacy conversion ~100 B – Eurocodes + (active) ~230
- 14. Practical examples of problems faced 1 Numeric character references being used in ID values when their intended use is for display <std std-id="DIN 50 100/02.78" type="undated"> <std-ref>DIN 50 100/02.78</std-ref> </std> 2. MathML anywhere? 12/10/2017
- 15. People challenges in adopting XML/ISO STS Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved. Skills • Upskilling • Reskilling • Attracting and retaining talent • Knowledge transfer Mindset • Transformation is challenging • The legacy burden • ‘What is smart content anyway?’ • …’isn’t XML dead yet?’ (again) • ‘Why use this schema?’
- 16. Process challenges - Tools 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 16 • Editorial (creation) • Proofing • Storage • Metadata capture • Integration with legacy systems • Specific ISO STS challenges: • Normalisation • Enrichment • Transformation DOI insertion process pre-XML transformation
- 17. Process changes – Quality requires active management 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 17 • New workflows and skills required to support XML quality • Vendor management • Supplier management • Reducing variance increases complexity • Full normalisation is unachievable • So do what you can and plan for change • Set up governance structures to control change • Use commercial inputs to decide when and how to apply change • Agree production metrics as to what is the new normalisation benchmark Validation Analysis Normalisation Post- normalisation editing Enrichment Application- Specific - editing Application- specific delivery
- 18. Controlling quality and enriching programmatically Summary of the features included in the 0.1 QA Spec • Key enrichment activities in this pipeline • DOI link insertion • Table footnote array Copyright © 2016 BSI. All rights reserved. Status Number Features deployed in XProc 15 Feature candidates (XSLTs in progress) 10 Identified variance for analysis 45 Total 70
- 19. Benefits – it was worth it 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 19 • Automation • Examples include our new typesetting processes • Speed • Production time is mostly reduced • Flexibility • Easier to explore new format options • Semantic enrichment provides relationship graphs for discovery and research purposes • Opportunities • Opportunities to re-use or enhance are greater – more time to focus on the product features and not the product content • Towards Knowledge products and services, not just ‘standards online’
- 20. Where next… 12/10/2017 20Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved
- 21. BSI and NISO STS 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 21 • Active participants in the NISO Steering and Working Groups • Active in various other task forces and initiatives • Lobbied for a ‘more strict’ model in NISO STS – based on our experiences with ISO STS, but understand the need for an ‘easier’ adoption path • Opportunity - Recognise and welcome (more) competition in the supply chain • Opportunity / Risk – Recognise and welcome (more) competition in the market • But…. • We still need a Standard for the Standard for Standards (as least for the ISO / IEC ecosystem) – fully behind STS4I • We should also be aligning the roadmaps for the transition
- 22. Thank you 12/10/2017 Copyright © 2017 BSI. All rights reserved 22 Ivan.Salcedo@bsigroup.com
Editor's Notes
- Our product certification mark, Kitemark was registered in 1903 and is still used today, with over 3,000 licences. Our Royal Charter status was awarded in 1929 and still provides today our guiding principles on how we operate. BSI were founding members of both ISO, the International Standardization Organization and CEN, the European Committee for Standardization and we are still actively involved today We originally opened our testing labs in Hemel Hempstead in 1950 and have grown our product certification business through the acquisition of specialist gas testing labs from in Loughborough. More recently acquisitions have included NCSI, the second largest certification body in Australia which has strengthened our expertise in food certification. The acquisition of specialist consultancy businesses, EORM, who provide environmental, health and safety consultancy and training and Espion who provide specialist information security and penetration testing services ensures that whatever our clients needs, BSI can provide a solution.
- Address specific needs – typesetting large looseleaf volumes with short lifespans Domain specific products with richer feature set
- I’m going to talk through the journey in more detail, outlining some issues and things to consider if you’re setting off down this path, and reflections on what we might have done differently or are seeking to improve now. And while there have been and continue to be challenges, there are some immediate benefits, and we’re obviously thinking of future benefits too. And that future is very much tied to the success of NISO STS as a standard for standards.
- Some common themes among standards publishers Do we need to change? What do our customers want? How do we persuade them to want more? How do we develop XML-based products? Are we still publishers, or software vendors? How do we transform ourselves to be an XML-Early or XML-First publisher?
- Remember that we are looking back on the journey now, so most of this is behind us. But even now, some of these questions re-appear, although sometimes the words change. The most common one we hear now is ‘but what is smart content?’ And while we’re not hearing so many ‘you should build an app’ comments, we’re now being asked how XML can help us with blockchain, or AI, or any number of other technology buzzwords.
- A relatively innocuous looking issue that causes significant problems when the application of the XML is not towards print.
- Sometimes scale helps, and sometimes it doesn’t.
- Enables BSI to build a semantically consistent content repository Enables BSI to produce enriched XML for Digital Product and Typesetting Automated transformation of XML variance Actioned within an XProc that sequences XSLTs A two-part process: 1. Identification – what structures are present in this XML 2. Transformation – should identified structures be marked-up differently Driven by a ‘QA Spec’ of identified ‘Features’ with associated XSLTs QA Spec controlled by Online Production Versioned controlled Applicable version written into the XML Acts a library of individual Features for normalisation Any issue identified in PDF that can be influenced from the XML will be included in the spec Changes to XML mark-up, driven by governance decisions can be made by Normalisation