Another abandoned server code base... this is kind of an ancestor of taskrambler.
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
 
 
 
 
 
 

987 lines
40 KiB

<!DOCTYPE report public "-//W3C//DTD Report 1997-05-18//EN"
"../XML/9705/report.dtd">
<report>
<head>
<title>An Evaluation of the World Wide Web with respect to
Engelbart's Requirements</title>
<!-- link rel=stylesheet href="test.css" -->
</head>
<titlepage>
<H1>An Evaluation of the World Wide Web with respect to Engelbart's
Requirements</H1>
<ADDRESS>
<author><A HREF="../People/Connolly/">Daniel W. Connolly</A>
<affiliation><A HREF="../../"><br>W3C</A><A
HREF="http://www.lcs.mit.edu/">MIT LCS</A></></>
<date><h3>$Date: 2002/08/13 22:52:26 $</h3></>
</ADDRESS>
<abstract>
<status><h2>Status of This Document</h2>
<p>This document is informational only. It does not specify
any new specifications or protocols. The editor is working
towards makin this document a <formal-term><a
href="../TR/#NOTE">W3C Note</a></>.
<p>This is based on <a href="../Collaboration/ECommerceEval">an Oct '95 conference paper</a>.</p>
</status>
<H3>Abstract</H3>
<P>The architecture and implementation of the World Wide Web are
evaluated with respect to Douglas Engelbart's requirements for an
open hyperdocument system. Engelbart's requirements are derived
from experience in using computer-supported collaborative work
(CSCW) to support large scale electronic commerce.
<keywords><H3>Keywords</H3><A
HREF="http://www.cs.indiana.edu/cstr/search?hypertext+system">Hypertext
Systems</A> <A HREF="../DesignIssues/">Web Design</A>
</keywords>
</abstract>
</titlepage>
<contents></>
<sect><H2>Introduction</H2>
<P>The World Wide Web is targeted at collaborative work: research,
development, marketing, advertising, negotiation, sales, and
support, if not more. in this way. It borrows many design
principles from the research in computer supported collaborative
work (CSCW), which showed how effective hypermedia systems can be
for knowledge capture, knowledge exchange, and collaboration in
general.
<P>In comparison to even the early hypertext research systems, the
Web is fairly simple and somewhat limited. And yet it is extremely
widely deployed and exploited. Is the Web technology ultimately
limited? Is it a passing phenomenon, or is it a viable long-term
platform for collaborative work and electronic commerce?
<P>In <bibref><a href="#Eng90">[Eng90]</a></>, Douglas Engelbart
condensed the results of many years of research in computer
supported collaborative work into twelve requirements<bibref><A
HREF="#ENG90">[ENG90]</A></>. This report evaluates the Web with
respect to each of the requirements: has it been met? If not, can
it? What are the obstacles, and what are the most promising
developments in each area?
</sect>
<sect><H2>Essential Elements of an Open Hyperdocument System</H2>
<P>Engelbart's research was directed at large scale knowledge
work; for example, in the aircraft industry, the interactions
between a major manufacturer and its contractors, subcontractors,
and so on. Research and experimentation led to the following
requirements:
<OL>
<LI><xref><A HREF="#mixdoc">Mixed Object Documents</A></>
<LI><xref><A HREF="#structdoc">Explicitly Structured
Documents</A></> <LI><xref><A HREF="#viewcontrol">View Control
of Object's Form, Sequence, and Content</A></> <LI><xref><A
HREF="#hyperdoc">The Basic
<q><c>"</>Hyperdocument<c>"</></q></A></> <LI><xref><A
HREF="#backlink">Hyperdocument <q><c>"</>Back-Link<c>"</></q>
Capability</A></> <LI><xref><A HREF="#library-system">The
Hyperdocument <q><c>"</>Library System<c>"</></q></A></>
<LI><xref><A HREF="#hypermail">Hyperdocument Mail</A></>
<LI><xref><A HREF="#digsig">Personal Signature Encryption</A></>
<LI><xref><A HREF="#access-control">Access Control</A></>
<LI><xref><A HREF="#human-addr">Link Addresses That Are Readable
and Interpretable by Humans</A></> <LI><xref><A
HREF="#alladdr">Every Object Addressable</A></> <LI><xref><A
HREF="#printlink">Hard-Copy Print Options to Show Address of
Objects and Address Specification of Links</A></>
</OL>
</sect>
<sect>
<H2>Overview of Web Architecture</H2>
<P>In order to evaluate the Web with respect to Engelbart's
requirements, some background on the architecture is essential.
<P>The Web is a hypermedia distributed information system. A
distributed information system allows users to access (read,
search, navigate) documents from a wide variety of computers
connected via a network. A hypertext system is one where the
documents have links in and between each other, so that readers
are not constrained to a sequential reading order. Finally, a
hypermedia system is one that integrates images, sounds, video,
and other media with text in documents.
<P>The Web incorporates a wide variety of information sources on
the Internet into a coherent information system. The user
experience on the Web is:
<OL>
<LI>An initial document is presented to the user, consisting of
text, graphics, sounds, animation, etc.
<LI>The user can choose one of the links in the document and
request to visit the document on the other end of the link. The
link specifies the address of another document.
<LI>The system retrieves the document at that address and
presents it to the user, and the process repeats.
</OL>
<subsects>
<subsect><H3>Protocols and Addressing Schemes</H3>
<P>A URI, or Uniform Resource Identifier, is a name or address
for an object in the Web<bibref><A
HREF="#URI">[URI]</A></>. For example:
<PRE>
http://www.w3.org/ ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc822.txt
</PRE>
<P>Each URI begins with <TT><VAR>scheme</VAR>:</TT>, where
<VAR>scheme</VAR> refers to an addressing or naming
scheme. For example, URIs beginning with <TT>http: </TT>refer
to objects accessible via the HTTP protocol; <TT>ftp:</TT>
refers to FTP objects, and so on. New schemes can be added
over time.
<P>There are a number of information retrieval protocols on
the Internet: FTP, gopher, WAIS, etc. In the Web user
experience, they behave similarly: a server makes a collection
of documents available. A client contacts a server and makes a
request to access one or more of the documents by giving a
command telling what sort of access (read, write, etc.) and
some parameters that indicate which is the relevant document
(s). Finally, the server fulfills the request by, for example,
transmitting the relevant document to the client.
<P>HTTP is a protocol designed specifically for the
Web<bibref><A HREF="#HTTP">[HTTP]</A></>. It is an extensible
protocol with support for the widely used features of existing
protocols, such as file transfer and index searching, plus
support for some novel features such as redirection and format
negotiation.
</subsect>
<subsect><H3>Data Formats</H3>
<P>There is no one data format for all Web documents<emdash>
-- </>each document may have its own format. In fact, it may
be available in many formats.
<P>Each data format has a name, or an Internet Media
Type. Internet Media Types, aka content types, are part of
MIME<bibref><A HREF="#MIME">[MIME]</A></>, a collection of
enhancements to Internet mail to accomodate rich media. Most
Internet Media Types are just standardized names for existing
data formats; for example, <TT>text/plain</TT> for normal
ASCII text; <TT>image/gif</TT> for images in GIF format, etc.
<P>The MIME standard also introduces some new data
formats. The <TT>multipart/mixed</TT> is a <DFN>compound</DFN>
data format<emdash> -- </>it allows several pieces of media to
be combined into one, for transmission via email, storage in a
file, etc.
<P>
Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is a data format designed
specifically for the Web. It combines the features of a
typical structured markup language (paragraphs, titles,
lists) with hypertext linking features.
<P>
HTML is an application of SGML, the Standard Generalized
Markup Language<bibref><A HREF="#SGML">[SGML]</A></>. SGML
is a technology for specifying structured document
types. HTML is one such document type, but there are many
others<emdash> -- </>as many as anyone cares to dream
up. TEI, DocBook, and Pinnacles are just a few of the types
of SGML documents used in the web<bibref><A
HREF="#NCSASGML">[NCSASGML]</A></>.
</subsect>
</subsects>
</sect>
<sect>
<H2>Evaluating the World Wide Web</H2>
<P>
This evaluation measures the World Wide Web against each of
Engelbart's requirements, discussing strengths, weaknesses, and
promising developments.</>
<subsects>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="mixdoc"><num>1. </>Mixed Object
Documents</A></H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>to provide for an arbitrary mix of text, diagrams,
equations, tables, raster-scan images (single frames, or
even live video), spread sheets, recorded sound,
etc.<emdash> -- </>all bundled within a common
<q><c>"</>envelope<c>"</></q> to be stored, transmitted,
read (played) and printed as a coherent entity called a
<q><c>"</>document.<c>"</></q>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
The first Web documents contained only text, but support for
icons and images was added to NCSA Mosaic in 1993. Since
then, Web pages with mixed text and graphics have been the
rule, and sound and video are not uncommon. As a recent
development, tables are widely deployed. Support for
equations is still essentially in development, and diagrams
are generally limited to rasterized snapshots.
<P>
Exchange of spreadsheets and other rich data sets associated
with proprietary software packages is supported to some
extent, but its use is generally limited to small
communities of interest who agree to use the packages.
<P>
This demonstrates that at least to some extent, the
requirement for mixed object documents is met. But it is not
met completely: the tools for composing mixed object
documents are primitive, and many features of a
comprehensive compound document architecture are lacking.</>
<subsubsects>
<subsubsect>
<H4>
Authoring Tools
</H4>
<P>
The intent of the original design of the web was that
documents would be composed in direct-manipulation
fashion from a rich set of media objects. The initial
prototype was done on the NeXTStep platform, which
allows drag-and-drop editing of rich text documents
including raster images, encapsulated postscript images,
sounds, diagrams, etc. The NeXTStep platform includes an
architecture and a set of development tools for adding
new object types to the mix available on the desktop.
<P>System such as <bibref><a
href="#hyperg">[Hyper-G]</A></> provide many of these
features, and recently products such as <bibref><A
HREF="#navisoft">[NaviPress]</A></> and <bibref><A
HREF="#frontpage">[FrontPage]</A></> beginning to provide
these features to the web user base at large.
</subsubsect>
<subsubsect>
<H4>
Compound Document Architecture
</H4>
<P>
The two technologies used to create compound documents
on the web are URIs and MIME. Objects can be linked
together by using their addresses. For example, the HTML
A, IMG, FORM, and LINK elements specify URIs of linked
objects. Links are typed to indicate various
relationships between objects such as parent/child,
precedes/succeeds, supports/refutes, etc. The MIME
multipart facility allows several pieces of content to
be combined into one entity. Support for typed links
and multipart data is deployed only to a limited extent.
<P>
The combination of URIs and MIME supports the entire
existing web information space. Still, compared with
compound document architectures such as OpenDoc, OLE,
Fresco, LINCKS<bibref><A HREF="#LINCKS">[LINCKS]</A></>,
or HyTime, many facilities are lacking.
<P>
Facilities for diagrams, equations, screen real-estate
arbitration, event management, versioning, transactions,
link indirection, and aggregation have been developed
for various web applications, but there are no standard
facilities. Standards for such facilities might result
in a critical mass of shared of technology that would
make feasible classes of applications that were
previously too costly.
</subsubsect>
</subsubsects>
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="structdoc"><num>2. </>Explicitly Structured
Documents</A></H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>where the objects comprising a document are arranged in
an explicit hierarchical structure, and compound-object
substructures may be explicitly addressed for access or
manipulation of the structural relationships.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
The Hypertext Markup Language used to represent most web
documents is a structured document format. Elements of HTML
documents are explicitly tagged, and structure can be
inferred from the tags. Not all substructures may be
explicitly addressed<emdash> -- </>only anchor elements and
embedded objects.
<P>
Fragment identifiers in URIs allow compound-object
substructures to be explicitly addressed.
<P>
Other hierarchical structures are possible, but not yet
supported. One facility that is notably lacking from Web
implementations is transclusion<emdash> -- </>the ability to
include one text object inside another by reference. For
example, to include an excerpt of one document inside
another, or to build a document out of section and
subsection objects.
<P>
Even if transclusion were supported, compound text documents
would probably be prohibitively expensive: the overhead for
a transaction in the current version of the HTTP protocol is
very high; hence the protocol is inefficient for retrieving
a number of small objects in succession. This inefficiency
is being addressed in efforts to revise the protocol.
<P>
Because HTML is essential to interoperability, it is
restricted to document structures that are universally
applicable. In many situations, a custom document type would
support more expressive collaboration. Widespread support
for custom SGML document types would enable such
collaboration.
<P>
SGML is not the only structured document technology
available. The multipart media types support explicit
hierarchical structure, and support for them is being
deployed.
<P>
The Web architecture clearly supports the requirement for
structured documents. But the deployed software provides
limited support. The Web is predominately used in a
<q><c>"</>publish and browse<c>"</></q> fashion; data
transmitted across the Web is largely throw-away data that
looks good but has little structure. In order to use the Web
as a rich collaboration platform, much more support for
structured documents will be needed.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="viewcontrol"><num>3. </>View Control of Object's
Form, Sequence, and Content</A></H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>where a structured, mixed-object document may be
displayed in a window according to a flexible choice of
viewing options<emdash> -- </>especially by selective level
clipping (outline for viewing), but also by filtering on
content, by truncation or some algorithmic view that
provides a more useful view of structure and/or object
content (including new sequences or groupings of objects
that actually reside in other documents). Editing on
structure or object content from such special views would be
allowed whenever appropriate.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>View control can be achieved on the Web by custom
processing by the information provider. A number of views can
be provided, and the consumer can express their choice via
links or HTML forms. For example, gateways to database query
systems and fulltext search systems are commonplace. Another
technique is to provide multiple views of an SGML document
repository<bibref><A HREF="#dynatext">[dynatext, </A></>
<bibref><A HREF="#I4I">I4I]</A></>.
<P>Another approach to view control is client-side processing:
after the document is transmitted, the reader's software could
filter, sort, or truncate the data. About the only such
control in wide deployment is the ability to turn off embedded
images. Outline views with folding have been proposed
<bibref><A HREF="#FOLD">[FOLD]</A></>, but the cost of
transmitting text that isn't displayed has presented a
barrier.
<P>
Stylesheets are a mechanism for presenting the same data in
different forms, using fonts, colors, and space to give
visual structure. Support for stylesheets is an important
ongoing development.
<P>
But in some systems<bibref><A HREF="#LINCKS">[LINCKS, </A>
<A HREF="#dynatext">dynatext]</A></>, stylesheets are much
more than that: they control form, sequence, and content as
Engelbart described. For example, in LINCKS, the same
document can be presented and edited in abstract form,
outline form, or full form depending on which stylesheet
(generic presentation descriptor, in their jargon) is in
effect.
<P>
At the extreme end of the spectrum, stylesheets give way to
arbitrary programs that display data and interact with the
reader. In a distributed system, running arbitrary programs
can have dangerous consequences. But advances such as
Safe-Tcl and Java make this technique of <q><c>"</>active
objects<c>"</></q> feasible.
<P>
It's clear that the Web architecture supports custom view
control. It remains to be seen whether some view control
mechanisms are sufficiently valuable to be standardized.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="hyperdoc"><num>4. </>The Basic
<q><c>"</>Hyperdocument<c>"</></q></A>
</H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>where embedded objects called <q><c>"</>links<c>"</></q>
can point to any arbitrary object within the document, or
within another document in a specified domain of
documents<emdash> -- </>and the link can be actuated by a
user or an automatic process to <q><c>"</>go see what is at
the other end,<c>"</></q> or <q><c>"</>bring the other-end
object to this location,<c>"</></q> or <q><c>"</>execute the
process identified a the other end.<c>"</></q> (These
executable processes may control peripheral devices such as
CD ROM, video-disk players, etc.)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
This requirement is clearly met. The hyperdocument as
described above is the epitome of the Web page.
<P>
The only exception is that Engelbart refers to links as
<q><c>"</>special objects,<c>"</></q> whereas in the Web,
links are not addressable <q><c>"</>first-class<c>"</></q>
objects<emdash> -- </>not in implementations, and not in the
architecture.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="backlink"><num>5. </>Hyperdocument
<q><c>"</>Back-Link<c>"</></q> Capability</A>
</H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>when reading a hyperdocument online, a worker can utilize
information about links from other objects within this or
other hyperdocuments that point to this
hyperdocument<emdash> -- </>or to designated objects or
passages of interest in this hyperdocument.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
The design of the Web trades link consistency guarantees for
global scalability. Links are one way , and the reverse
link is not guaranteed to exist.
<P>
Aside from the intractability of maintaining global link
consistency, another barrier to a distributed back-link
service is privacy. Some links are sensitive, and their
owners do not want them easily discovered.
<P>
These barriers do not, however, prevent Web users from
utilizing back-link information. Some Web server tools
<bibref><A HREF="#frontpage">[FrontPage]</A></>) maintain
back-link information for the local site. And the HTTP
protocol includes a mechanism<emdash> -- </>the
<TT>Referer:</TT> field <emdash> -- </>that allows
information providers to gather back-link information for
their site.
<P>
Finally, there are search services that traverse the web
building full-text search indexes. Some <bibref><A
HREF="#altavista">[Altavista]</A></> take advantage of the
links they encounter to offer back-link services.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A name="library-system"><num>6. </>The Hyperdocument
<q><c>"</>Library System<c>"</></q></A></H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>where hyperdocuments can be submitted to a library-like
service that catalogs them and guarantees access when
referenced by its catalog number, or <q><c>"</>jumped
to<c>"</></q> with an appropriate link. Links within newly
submitted hyperdocuments can cite any passages within any of
the prior documents, and the back-link service lets the
online reader of a document detect and <q><c>"</>go
examine<c>"</></q> any passage of a subsequent document that
has a link citing that passage.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>There are no guarantees of access on the web today. A few
commercial web service providers <bibref><A
HREF="#navipress">[NaviService]</A></> guarantee server
availability on a 24x7 basis, but this doesn't guarantee
access to the entire global user base<emdash> -- </>any
network interruption between the reader and the provider can
prevent access.
<P>
In a distributed system, absolute guarantees are
impossible. But reliability can be made arbitrarily good by
investing in redundancy. A number of strategies for caching
and replication (including <bibref><A
HREF="#harvest">Harvest</A></>) are being explored,
standardized, and deployed.
<P>
Catalog numbering systems have not matured either. This is
known as <q><c>"</>the URN problem.<c>"</></q> A number of
promising proposals have been made <bibref><A
HREF="#PATH">[PATH, </A><A HREF="#STANF">STANF]</A></>, but
none is widely deployed.
<P>Digital Libraries is an active field of research. ARPA is
funding research, and the Online Computer Library Center is
conducting experiments.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="hypermail"><num>7. </>Hyperdocument Mail</A></H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>where an integrated, general-purpose mail service enables
a hyperdocument of any size to be mailed. Any embedded links
are also faithfully transmitted<emdash> -- </>and any
recipient can then follow those links to their designated
targets in other mail items, in common-access files, or in
<q><c>"</>library<c>"</></q> items.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
Internet Mail is possibly the world's most widely deployed
information system. MIME, the Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions, standardizes facilities for attachments and
compound documents, among other things.
<P>
Though nearly every new mail system supports MIME, the
installed base of pre-MIME mail systems is still significant
<emdash> -- </>a majority by many estimates.
<P>
User interfaces that integrate email (and USENET news) into
the Web user experience are anticipated, but not deployed.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="digsig"><num>8. </>Personal Signature
Encryption</A></H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>where a user can affix his personal signature to a
document, or a specified segment within the document, using
the private signature key. Users can verify that the
signature is authentic and that no bit of the signed
document or document segment has been altered since it was
signed.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
There are a number of digital signature standards, but none
has been globally adopted and deployed on the web.
<P>
One barrier is patent licensing. A critical feature of web
technology that led to its rapid deployment was its
royalty-free copyright status. Patents on public-key
cryptography prevent digital signature technology from being
deployed without license negotiations.
<P>
Another barrier is export control
legislation. Implementations of cryptographic techniques
such as encryption are considered munitions by many
governments, and there are strict controls on the export of
such technologies.
<P>
But the largest barrier is the social and educational
one. Digital signature techniques will have to be tested in
production use, and users will have to be educated about the
related issues before commerce can depend on this
technology.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="access-control"><num>9. </>Access
Control</A></H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>Hyperdocuments in personal, group, and library files can
have access restrictions down to the object level.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
The distributed nature of the Web allows information
providers to implement any access control policy they
choose, down to the object level.
<P>
Minimal support for username/password authentication is
widely deployed. This allows information providers to
implement access control based on users and groups of
users. But this basic facility is not robust in the face of
concerted attack.
<P>
A number of mechanisms for strong authentication and
confidentiality, as well as billing and payment are being
standardized. A complete discussion of these mechanisms is
beyond the scope of this document.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="human-addr"><num>10. </>Link Addresses That Are
Readable and Interpretable by Humans</A></H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>one of the <q><c>"</>viewing options<c>"</></q> for
displaying/printing a link object should provide a
human-readable description of the <q><c>"</>address
path<c>"</></q> leading to the cited object; AND, that the
human must be able to read the path description, interpret
it, and follow it (find the destination <q><c>"</>by
hand<c>"</></q> so to speak).
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
Document addresses in the web are designed so that they can
be transcribed<emdash> -- </>written on envelopes, recited
over the phone, etc. Each URI scheme has an associated
public specification of how to interpret and follow its path
description.
<P>
By and large, URIs are sensible to those familiar with the
conventions<emdash> -- </><TT>http://www.ford.com</TT> is
the address of Ford Motor Company, for example.
<P>But portions of URIs are allowed to be opaque by
design<emdash> -- </>they may be pointers into an index,
checksums, dates, etc.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="alladdr"><num>11. </>Every Object
Addressable</A></H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>in principal, every object that someone might validly
want/need to cite should have an unambiguous address
(capable of being portrayed in a manner as to be human
readable and interpretable). (E.g. not acceptable to be
unable to link to an object within a
<q><c>"</>frame<c>"</></q> or <q><c>"</>card.<c>"</></q>)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
Every object on the web is addressable. But not every
substructure within objects that someone might need to cite
has a standard addressing mechanism. For example,
individual pages in a postscript document, lines in a text
file, pixels in an image.
<P>
These structures are, in principle, addressable. Only a
standard syntax for URI fragment identifiers to address them
is lacking.
<P>
In HTML documents, elements can be named and addressed. But
there is no mechanism to address unnamed elements. For
parties that do not have write access to a document, this
presents a problem.
<P>
One solution would be to allow elements to be addressed by
their structural position. There are a number of standard
technologies for addressing elements of SGML documents (and
hence HTML documents): TEI pointers, HyTime location
ladders, and DSSSL queries. Any of these could be
incorporated into web software.
<P>
Another possibility is to address strings within a document
by pattern matching. One annotation system<bibref><A
HREF="#BRIO">[BRIO]</A></> uses patricia trees for stable
pointers into documents.
</subsect>
<subsect>
<H3><A NAME="printlink"><num>12. </>Hard-Copy Print Options to
Show Address of Objects and Address Specification of Links</A>
</H3>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<p>so that, besides online workers being able to follow a
link-citation path (manually, or via an automatic link
jump), people working with associated hard copy can read and
interpret the link-citation, and follow the indicated path
to the cited object in the designated hard-copy document.
<P>
Also, suppose that a hard-copy worker wants to have a link
to a given object established in the online file. By
visual inspection of the hard copy, he should be able to
determine a valid address path to that object and for
instance hand-write an appropriate link specification for
later online entry, or dictate it over a phone to a
colleague
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
Most of the installed base of web client software allows
users to view link address. But ironically, that option is
not available for printing in many cases. It would be a
straightforward enhancement, well within the bounds of the
existing architecture.
</subsect>
</subsects>
</sect>
<sect>
<H2>Summary</H2>
<P>
In the following table, each row represents one of Engelbart's
requirements. The columns are as follows:
<DL>
<DT>
Architecture Support
<DD>
Is the requirement explicitly addressed in the Web
architecture? Does the architecture passively allow the
requirement to be met by applications? Or does the
architecture conflict with the requirement?
<DT>
Standard Facilities
<DD>
Are there standardized facilities that meet the requirement?
Partially meet the requirement?
<DT>
Ubiquitous Facilities
<DD>
Some facilities are standardized, but not required of all
systems, or not supported by all installations. What
facilities are assumed to be supported by all participants
in the web?
<DT>
Local/Proprietary Facilities
<DD>
Has the requirement been met within the architecture by
local applications or with the use of proprietary
facilities?
</DL>
<P>
Each cell contains an evaluation of whether the requirement is
met (YES, NO, PASSive, or PARTial) followed by a list of
relevant facilities. Missing facilities are marked with *.
<TABLE>
<caption>Evaluation</caption>
<TR>
<TH>Requirement</TH> <TH>Architecture Support</TH>
<TH>Standard Facilities</TH> <TH>Ubiquitous Facilities</TH>
<TH>Local/Proprietary Facilities</TH>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>1. Mixed Object Documents</TD> <TD>YES: format
negotiation, typed links</TD> <TD>PART: URI, HTML, IMG,
INSERT, MIME<BR> link types*</TD> <TD>PART: GIF in HTML</TD>
<TD>YES: JPEG in HTML, Java/Safe-Tcl in HTML, OLE, OpenDoc,
Fresco<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>2. Explicitly Structured Documents</TD> <TD>YES:
fragment identifiers</TD> <TD>YES: HTML, SGML, MIME</TD>
<TD>PART: HTML</TD> <TD>YES: Panorama, OLE, LINCKS</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>3. View Control of Object's Form, Sequence, and
Content</TD> <TD>PASS</TD> <TD>PART: HTTP, CGI</TD>
<TD>NO</TD> <TD>YES: DynaWeb, Java/Safe-Tcl, Style
Sheets</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>4. The Basic <q><c>"</>Hyperdocument<c>"</></q></TD>
<TD>YES</TD> <TD>YES: URI, HTML</TD> <TD>YES: URI, HTML</TD>
<TD></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>5. Hyperdocument <q><c>"</>Back-Link<c>"</></q>
Capability</TD> <TD>PASS</TD> <TD>PART: Referer</TD>
<TD>NO</TD> <TD>YES: local link map, back-link service</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>6. The Hyperdocument <q><c>"</>Library
System<c>"</></q></TD> <TD>PASS</TD> <TD>NO</TD> <TD>NO</TD>
<TD>NO</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>7. Hyperdocument Mail</TD> <TD>PASS</TD> <TD>YES:
MIME</TD> <TD>YES: MIME</TD> <TD></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>8. Personal Signature Encryption</TD> <TD>PASS</TD>
<TD>NO</TD> <TD>NO</TD> <TD>YES: S-HTTP, PEM, S/MIME, PGP,
PKCS-7</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>9. Access Control</TD> <TD>YES</TD> <TD>PART: Basic
auth</TD> <TD>PART: Basic Auth</TD> <TD>YES: MD5, SSL,<BR>
S-HTTP, PGP, smart cards, etc.</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>10. Link Addresses That Are Readable and Interpretable
by Humans</TD> <TD>PART: URI</TD> <TD>PART: URI</TD>
<TD>PART: URI</TD> <TD></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>11. Every Object Addressable</TD> <TD>objects: YES
substructures: PASS</TD> <TD>PART: URI</TD> <TD>PART:
URI</TD> <TD></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>12. Hard-Copy Print Options to Show Address of Objects
and Address Specification of Links</TD> <TD>PASS</TD>
<TD>NO</TD> <TD>NO</TD> <TD>YES: HTML2LaTeX</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
</sect>
<sect><H2>Conclusions</H2>
<P>Support for Engelbart's requirements is far from
ubiquitous. But the architecture in no way prevents them from
being realized, and the quantity of resources integrated into the
system provides ample motivation for research and development.
<P>
In each area where facilities to meet the requirement are not
ubiquitous, a demonstration of sufficient facilities has taken
place.
<P>
This gives confidence that the requirements will eventually be
met and become infrastructure.
<P>
If in fact Engelbart's requirements are an effective way to
measure the viability of a platform for electronic commerce, the
Web is very likely to be a viable platform for some time to
come.
</sect>
<sect>
<H2>
Acknowledgements
</H2>
<P>
This paper has been in development since I met Douglas Engelbart
and Tim Berners-Lee on the same day at Hypertext '91.
<P>
Since then, a number of collaborators have influenced my
perspective on web design: Roy Fielding, Larry Masinter, Terry
Allen, and Stu Wiebel to name a few.
<P>
Thanks to Jim Miller for his encouragement and review comments.
<P>I would also like to thank Ravi Kalakota, who invited me to
write this paper and present it at <bibref><a
href="#austin-ecommerce">[UT95]</a>, and Keith Instone and the
participants of the <a href="http://instone.org/keith/hrweb/ht96-call.html">HRWeb workshop</a> at Hypertext '96 in Washington D.C. </>.
</sect>
<references><H2>References</H2>
<DL>
<DT><A name=BRIO>[BRIO]</A>
<DD><ref.inproceedings><ref.title><A
HREF="http://www-diglib.stanford.edu/diglib/pub/reports/brio_www95.html">Beyond
Browsing: Shared Comments, SOAPs, Trails and On-line
Communities</A></> <ref.author>by M. R&ouml;scheisen, C. Mogensen
and T. Winograd</> <ref.intitle>appeared in <A
HREF="http://www.igd.fhg.de/www95.html">Fifth International
World Wide Web Conference</A></> <ref.pub.addr>Darmstadt</>,
<ref.date num=1995>1995</>. See also <A
HREF="http://www-diglib.stanford.edu/diglib/pub/reports/COMMENTOR">ComMentor
Documentation</A>.[html document, 88k] added Feb. 21, 1995</>
<DT><A name=ENG90>[ENG90]</A>
<DD><ref.inproceedings><ref.title><A
HREF="http://www.bootstrap.org/augment/AUGMENT/132082.html"> Knowledge-Domain
Interoperability and an Open Hyperdocument System</A></>
<ref.author>Douglas C. Engelbart</> <ref.intitle>Proceedings
of the Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Work</>,
<ref.pub.addr>Los Angeles, CA</> <ref.date num="19901007">Oct
7-10,</> <ref.pages>pp. 143-156.</> (AUGMENT, 132082).</>
<DT><A name=FOLD>[FOLD]</A>
<DD><ref.email><ref.title>Proposal<emdash> -- </>Foldable
Anchor Inclusion</> ,<ref.author><a
href="mailto:torrance@ai.mit.edu">Mark Torrance</a></> message
to <ref.pub.addr>www-talk@w3.org</>, <ref.date
num="19940727">Tue, 26 Jul 94 13:40:42 EDT</>. See: <A
HREF="http://www.eit.com/cgi-bin/wwwwais?keywords=Outline+Fold&amp;selection=WWW-HTML%2C+1994-5&amp;maxhits=40">archives</A>.</>
<DT><A name=HTML>[HTML]</A>
<DD><ref.report><ref.title>HyperText Markup Language
Specification<emdash> -- </>2.0</>, <ref.institution><A
HREF="http://www.ietf.org/">IETF</A></> <ref.num><A
HREF="ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1866.txt">RFC 1866</A></>
<ref.author>T. Berners-Lee and D. Connolly</>, <ref.date
num="199511">November 1995</>.</>
<DT><A name=HTTP>[HTTP]</A>
<DD><ref.report><A
HREF="ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-00.ps">Hypertext
Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.0</A>. T. Berners-Lee,
R. T. Fielding, and H. Frystyk Nielsen. Work in Progress, MIT,
UC Irvine, CERN, March 1995.</>
<DT><A name=LINCKS>[LINCKS]</A>
<DD><ref.report>LINCKS<emdash> -- </>a platform for
cooperative information systems, P. Lambrix, M. Sj&ouml;lin, and
L. Pagdham, unpublished manuscript, Department of Computer and
Information Science, LiTH, Sweden, 1993. See: <A
HREF="http://www.ida.liu.se/~lincks/">LINCKS Home Page</A></>
<DT><A name=MIME>[MIME]</A>
<DD><ref.report>MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the Format
of Internet Message Bodies. N. Borenstein &amp;
N. Freed. September 1993. (Format: TXT=187424, <A
HREF="http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc1521.ps">PS</A>=393670
bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1341) (Updated by RFC1590)</>
<DT><A name=NCSASGML>[NCSASGML]</A>
<DD><ref.report><A
HREF="http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Software/Mosaic/WebSGML.html">Welcome
to SGML on the Web</A>, Lucy Ventresca, NCSA and
SoftQuad. Work in Progress.</>
<DT><A name=PATH>[PATH]</A>
<DD><ref.report><A
HREF="http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/www/path.html">The
Path URN Specification </A>, D. LaLiberte, M. Shapiro,
Internet Draft 07/26/1995</>
<DT><A name=STANF>[STANF]</A>
<DD><ref.report><A
HREF="http://www.saintjoe.edu/URI/stanf.html">table Network
File URLs as a Mechanism for Uniform Naming </A> Terry
Winograd. Early draft version 12/2/93</>
<DT><A name=SGML>[SGML]</A>
<DD><ref.report><A
HREF="http://www.iso.ch/cate/d16387.html">ISO
8879</A>. Information Processing<emdash> -- </>Text and Office
Systems - Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML),
1986.</>
<DT><A name=URI>[URI]</A>
<DD><ref.report><A
href="http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc1630.txt">rfc1630.txt</A>
<emdash> -- </>Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A
Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of
Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide
Web. T. Berners-Lee. June 1994. (Format: TXT=57601 bytes)</>
<dt><a name=hyperg>[HyperG]</a> <dd><ref.email><a
HREF="http://hyperg.iicm.tu-graz.ac.at/Chyperg">Hyper-G</A>@@</>
<dt><a name=navipress>[Navipress]</a> <dd><ref.email><A
HREF="http://www.navisoft.com/">NaviPress</A>, <a
HREF="http://www.naviservice.com/">NaviService</A>@@</>
<dt><a name=frontpage>[FrontPage]</a> <dd><ref.email><A
HREF="http://www.vermeer.com/">FrontPage</A>@@</>
<dt><a name=dynatext>[Dynatext]</a> <dd><ref.email><A
HREF="http://www.ebt.com/">dynatext</A>@@</>
<dt><a name="I4I">[I4I]</a> <dd><ref.email><A
HREF="http://www.i4i.org/vision.html">I4I</A>@@</>
<dt><a name="altavista">[AltaVista]</a> <dd><ref.email><a
HREF="http://www.altavista.digital.com/">Altavista</A>@@</>
<dt><a name="harvest">[Harvest]</a> <dd><ref.email><A
HREF="http://harvest.cs.colorado.edu/">Harvest</A>@@</>
<dt><a name="oclc">[OCLC]</a> <dd><ref.email><A
HREF="http://www.oclc.org/">OCLC</A> research@@</>
<dt><A name="austin-ecommerce">[UT95]</a> <dd><ref.email><a
href="http://cism.bus.utexas.edu/ravi/ecomm.html">The First
International Conference on Electronic Commerce</A> at the
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, October 1995 @@</>
</DL>
</references>
</report>