Republic of Serbia
MINISTRY OF
STATE ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
DIRECTORATE FOR E-GOVERNMENT
INTEROPERABILITY
STANDARDS LIST
VERSION 1.0
JUNE 2014
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Content
1.
RECITALS ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTENTION OF THE DOCUMENT AND TARGET USERS ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STANDARDS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 2
1.3 STRATEGIC AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 INTEROPERABILITY CONCEPT OF THE NIF ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.
ESTABLISHING THE INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST ............................................................................. 5
2.1 CATEGORIZATION OF STANDARDS................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 STATUS LEVELS......................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1
Proposed ................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2
Considered ................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.2.3
Recommended .......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.4
Accepted .................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.5
Inventory .................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.6
Dismissed .................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 DURATION OF STANDARDS ......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST ........................................................................................................... 10
3.1 NETWORK LAYER.....................................................................................................................................................10
3.2 DATA INTEGRATION LAYER ........................................................................................................................................12
3.3 BUSINESS SERVICES LAYER ......................................................................................................................................13
3.4 ACCESS AND PRESENTATION LAYER............................................................................................................................16
3.5 WEB SERVICE LAYER ................................................................................................................................................20
3.6 SECURITY LAYER .....................................................................................................................................................22
4.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................................... 26
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
1. RECITALS
Directorate for e-Government, in cooperation with the state institutions /partners (see 1.3), has composed the
first version of the recommendation for establishing and implementing the interoperability standards list in the
state administration bodies in the Republic of Serbia, in the form of a document entitled as “Interoperability
Standards List” v.1.0.
The document is intended for all the state administration resources in the process of achieving the technical
interoperability. It is recommended that the state administration bodies, whenever this is possible, use the
proposed open standards, as well as other standards which are widely used, with the aim of providing an
independent choice of the alternative technologies at the state administration bodies, as well as the adaptability
to the technological novelties. Having regard that the technical standards are constantly evolving, it is necessary
to maintain and update the established List of Standards on the regular basis, according to the needs of the state
sector and technological requirements.
The process of introducing or modifying the standards status commences with proposing amendments by various
sources (expert groups, IT sector in the state administration, contact forms, public discussion groups or by the
authors themselves). The proposals are submitted in the form of an official request to the Directorate for eGovernment, which is examined by the Commission/expert group, after which the accepted proposals are
introduced to the Interoperability Standards List.
1.1 INTENTION OF THE DOCUMENT AND TARGET USERS
With the aim of establishing and implementing interoperability in the state administration bodies in the Republic
of Serbia, being a unique starting point, it is recommended to use the established Interoperability Standards List–
which includes the list of standards, predominately open standards, with the complete reference for each
recommended standard.
Based on the recommendation from the “European Interoperability Framework”, v.1.0.1, in this document open
standards which accomplish the following properties are recommended: “a standard is brought, maintained and
developed by a non-profit organization on the open procedure of decision making basis available to all interested
parties, a document with the specification of standards is available free of charge, multiplication, distribution and
its perusal is allowed and intellectual property – i.e. possible patents – standards (parts) are irrevocably given at
the free of charge disposal for copyright”.2
The grounds on which the List of Standards is established takes into consideration the basic information
communication infrastructure of the state administration which supports communication within and with the state
administration bodies, access to information systems and usage of services.
1 European
2
Interoperability Framework v.1.0, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3761/5845.html
Free Software Foundation Europe – Open standards, http://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.hr.html
1
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
This document provides the List of Standards, which might be used in all segments of the e-Government, even in a
wider circle of the public sector, and it is intended for:

Qualified persons dealing with the ICT infrastructure at the national and local levels

Operational support for the ICT sectors in the state administration bodies

All suppliers/providers of the ICT services to the state administration bodies
Proposed standards are based on:

The best practice and experience in the Republic of Serbia3

“European Interoperability Framework”, v.1.04

“European Interoperability Framework”, v. 2.0 (European Commission 2011)5

SAGA v.5.1.0 (Standards and Architectures for e-Government Applications, the Federal Republic of
Germany, 2011.)6
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STANDARDS INTRODUCTION
Information exchange among the information communication systems within and with the state administration
bodies is a major challenge for the Government of the Republic of Serbia, since many new and older systems have
their own interfaces which provide limited possibilities for interoperability. The Government of the Republic of
Serbia has recognized the significance of the standards in terms of providing interoperability, since adoption of
standards, which are based on the solution integration, represents a method of reducing the long-term integration
costs and facilitating the flexibility of the information comminication infrastructure of the state administration.
Definitions of standards published by IEEE7 are used for the needs of this document: “A standards is a published
document which determines the specification and procedures designed to ensure that the documents, material,
method or service accomplish their purposes and consistent uses and intentions“ and EIF v.1.04: “in the field of
technical standards and regulations, the term ‘standard’ represents a technical specification approved by the
international, European and national standardization authority“.
3 Portal
of the e-Government of the Republic of Serbia, www.euprava.gov.rs
Interoperability Framework (ЕIF) v.1.0, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Docd552.pdf?id=19529
4 European
5 European
Interoperability Framework (ЕIF)v.2.0, http://ec.europa.eu/isa/documents/isa_annex_ii_eif_en.pdf
6 SAGA-Modul
Grundlagen v.5.1.0, http://www.ogd.cc/dokument/saga-modul-grundlagen-version-de-bund-5-1-0/ , 03.11.2011.
7 IЕЕЕ
Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossarie, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=4683, https://standards.ieee.org/
2
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Beside a series of policies recommended by the National Interoperability Framework (hereinafter: NIF)8 there are
also the standards which the state administration should use so that its services, citizens and partners would
communicate with each other. The objective is to promote the quality of services at the local and national level
through increasing the efficiency of the information communication systems in the state and public sector.
The main objectives of establishing the Interoperability Standards List are the following:

Provide interoperability among the information communication systems in the state administration for
promoting the quality of the public services;

New/improved administration procedures; information transparency; flexibility; globalization;

Supervision of the standardized processes for the e-Government projects development.
1.3 STRATEGIC AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
For the purpose of establishing interoperability in the state administration bodies, at the session of the
Government of the Republic of Serbia held on 10th January 2014 by the Decision 05 Number: 345 –
11418/2013, the National Interoperability Framework was adopted and the Directorate for Digital Agenda was
chosen for the coordinator of the activities which are implemented in relation to the adopted National Framework.
By the Action Plan (2013-2014) for implementing the Information Society Development Strategy in the Republic of
Serbia until 20209, the Directorate for Digital Agenda was chosen, for the purpose of implementing the NIF, for
establishing, publishing and maintaining the Interoperability Standards List, also in coordination with the following
state institutions: Ministry of Foreign and Internal Trade and Telecommunications, Ministry of Justice and State
Administration, Administration for Joint Services of the Republic Bodies, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia,
as well as with the partner Institute for Standardization of Serbia.
By the Law on Ministries (“Official Gazette of RS” No. 44/14, as of 26/4/2014)10, Directorate for e-Government,
the administration body within the Ministry of State Administration and Local Self-Government, was chosen for a
legal
successor of the Directorate for Digital Agenda. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of State
Administration and Local Self-Government are the true legal successors of the Ministry of Justice and State
Administration, whereas the Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunication is the legal successor of the
Ministry of Foreign and Internal Trade and Telecommunications.
____________________________________
8
National Interoperability Framework, http://mtt.gov.rs/download/2/ostali%20akti/NOI%20Srbija2013.pdf
9
Development of the Information Society Strategy in the Republic of Serbia until 2020 (‘’Official Gazette of RS“, No. 51/10), with Action Plan
for its implementation: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/dokumenti_sekcija.php?id=45678
10 Law
on Ministries (‘’Official Gazette of RS“, No. 44/14, as of 26/4/2014),
http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/archive/files/cir/pdf/zakoni/2014/1044-14.pdf
3
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
1.4 INTEROPERABILITY CONCEPT OF THE NIF
Reforms and modernization of the sate administration, based on a wide use of information communication
technologies, represent one of the significant elements of further development of the information society in the
Republic of Serbia. A precondition for successful reforms of the state administration, where a major role is played
by the ICT, would also be establishing efficient administration, decreasing administrative costs and faster and
cheaper provision of public services to citizens and economy based on the principle “one stop shop”.
Guidelines for establishing and implementing interoperability in the state administration bodies were determined
by the National Framework, which concern building a system which enables exchange of information, obtaining
information and knowledge through harmonized business processes supported by ICT. Likewise, the National
Interoperability Framework is established in accordance with the European practice in terms of service provision,
by respecting security policy, privacy, data recording and archiving.
National Framework defines interoperability as a “capacity of the information communication technology systems
and business processes they support, to exchange data and ensure mutual use of information and knowledge”
(IDABC).11
In accordance with the NIF, interoperability will secure coordination of business processes within and with the
state administration bodies, through the use of appropriate standards, proposed in the document.
11 IDABC
2004, European Interoperability Framework for Pan-European services of the e-Government (1.1.2. Definition and objectives, p.5)
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/2319/5644.html
4
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
2. ESTABLISHING THE INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
In this section, as one of the application instruments of the National Interoperability Standards, a description of
technical aspects of the standards categorization is given, which is related to the e-Government needs in the fields
concerned by the National Framework. The objective of establishing the Interoperability Standards List would be
“coordination and harmonization of business processes and information architectures which bridge the internal
and mutual organizational borders”(ЕPAN).12
The established Interoperability Standards List is founded on the technical layer of interoperability. Technical
interoperability is related to all technical issues (technology, standards, guidelines and business policy) by which it
is guaranteed that the technical components of the information communication systems of the bodies which
operate with each other, will be able to cooperate. It is necessary to bear in mind that the technical interoperability
is not concerned only with technology on the level of physical connecting (such as network protocols), but also
with the technologies supporting organizational and semantic layers.
2.1 CATEGORIZATION OF STANDARDS
In this document, a classification for categorization of standards was made within the interoperability framework
for the purpose of supporting the proposed architecture in the areas of process modeling, data modeling,
application architecture, clients, presentations, communication, connecting with the background base and
security.
Standards were categorized by using the “models of layers”. Models of layers are widely used and implemented
for classification of functions within the information technology systems for the purpose of their simplification
through division of their functions into levels. Components usually communicate with others only on the
neighboring levels and in a standardized way.
Figure 1 shows a layered model used for categorization of standards.
12
ЕPAN - European Public Administration Network,
Key principles of the interoperability architecture, 2004, http://www.epractice.eu/files/media/media_553.pdf, p.4
5
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Business services
Data integration
Security
Governing
Managing
Access and presentation
Network
Figure 1: Layered model of standards categorization
Basic structural components of this model are the following:

Network: Includes specifications on data transfer, such as network protocols. This is a key technical field
of interoperability. Without the agreement on networking standards and their correct use, it is difficult, or
even impossible to establish communication among the systems.

Data integration: It facilitates interoperable exchange and processing of data. These standards ensure
data exchange among dissimilar systems.

Business services: They support exchange in terms of data and information in specific business
applications. Some of the standards in this layer are generic with multiple contexts of business
information. Others, associated with the standards for data integration, serve for defining the meaning of
the data, which they connect with the applicable business information.

Access and presentation: This is related to the method of accessing and presenting the business
systems. A web presentation is a place on the Internet and it represents a set of web pages/applications,
which may include text, images, videos and other multimedia contents composed as a whole.

Web service layer: This is related to the recommended standards for all subjects in state administration
so as to ensure that the access to the offered data is automated and that they are used in other
information systems in the way which is most suitable for their requirements.
The following structural components are applied to all layers:

Security: It permeates into all layers, by which it indicates that security is an important issue which should
be planned in the entire system. Interoperability Standards List contains standards on various levels
designed so that they can offer various security levels based on their needs.

Managing and governing: Defined interoperability standards will change and develop along with the
technology and also with the need for organizational changes as it would emerge. Therefore, it is
important to exist a suitable managing and governing control for sustainability and maintenance of these
standards.
6
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
2.2 STATUS LEVELS
The List of Standards which encompasses the interoperability framework pursuant to the National Interoperability
Framework is recommended in the document. The standards are classified into several status levels based on the
SAGA model13:
2.2.1
PROPOSED
Proposed status level represents an initial classification of standards. The standard is labeled as “Proposed” when
it has a potential to be used in information communication systems and when an interested party submits a
request for entering such standard in the Interoperability Standards List. The “Proposed” standards may be given
the status “Considered”, “Dismissed” or “Inventory”.
2.2.2
CONSIDERED
Standards are classified as “Considered” if they follow the desired development direction and if they are in
operation. In practice, it has not been confirmed yet that they are suitable for the needs of the state
administration bodies. “Considered” standards may be used in information communication systems if there are no
complementary standards classified as “Recommended” or “Accepted”. “Considered” standards may obtain the
status of “Recommended” or “Dismissed” standards.
2.2.3
RECOMMENDED
Standards are classified as “Recommended” if it has been confirmed in practice that they may be suitable for the
needs of the state administration bodies. The recommended standards may be used when there are no
alternative standards, classified as “Accepted”. Competing standards may be simultaneously classified
“Recommended”. In such cases, it is necessary to use the most suitable standard for a specific application.
“Recommended” standards may obtain the status of “Accepted” or “Inventory”.
2.2.4
ACCEPTED
Standards are classified as “Accepted” if they have been confirmed in practice and represent the sole preferred
solution. It is necessary that all of the standards meet the objectives in terms of agility, reliability, interoperability,
multiple use, and adaptation possibility. “Accepted” standards may be given the status of the “Recommended”
standard.
13
SAGA - Modul Grundlagen v 5.1.0, http://www.cio.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Architekturen-undStandards/SAGA/saga_modul_grundlagen_de_bund_5_1_0_download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, p. 13
7
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
2.2.5
INVENTORY
Standards are classified as “Inventory”, if there is a more suitable competing standard. These standards should
not be applied for new information communication systems, but if they were used before in similar existing
systems, they may be used further on.
2.2.6
DISMISSED
It is considered that the standards are “Dismissed” if they become obsolete due to the technological progress.
Standards which are classified as “Proposed” may also be classified as “Dismissed” if they were rejected, after
which it is not expected that such standard will be classified in another group. These standards should be
changed within the existing systems by using other acceptable standard and they should not be used as new.
2.3 DURATION OF STANDARDS
The following Figure 2 illustrates possible transfers among six classifications:
Figure 2: Duration of standards14
4
SAGA - Modul Grundlagenv 5.1.0, http://www.cio.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Architekturen-undStandards/SAGA/saga_modul_grundlagen_de_bund_5_1_0_download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, adapted, p. 15
8
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Each standard may go through several transitions. For instance, a standard classified as “Proposed” may transfer
into “Considered”, “Inventory” or “Dismissed”. Only a standard classified as “Inventory” cannot transfer into any
other class other than “Dismissed”.
The following transitions are possible among the classes (Figure 2):
1. New possible standards which will be used in the information communication systems are proposed when
an interested party submits an official request, to Directorate for e-Government, for inclusion of such
standard in the Interoperability Standards List. Such standards are primarily classified as “Proposed”.
2. “Proposed” standards, which were not received well and which did not appear as useful after testing for
new and existing information communication systems, are classified as “Dismissed”.
3. “Proposed” standards, in case of which it is decided after testing in new information communication
systems that they should not be used in the new systems, but that they can still be used in the existing
systems, are classified as “Inventory”.
4. “Proposed” standards are classified as “Considered” after a positive overview of the suitable conditions.
5. “Considered” standards should be classified as “Recommended” after successful testing of the required
conditions.
6. “Recommended” properties are classified as “Accepted” after successful testing of the suitable
conditions.
7. “Accepted” properties may be reduced to the level of “Recommended” after testing and suitable repeated
evaluation, in case there is a possible better candidate for the regulated field.
8. If the “Recommended” properties should not be used for new projects any longer, they are classified as
“Inventory” after the overview.
9. “Inventory” classification provides continuity, whereupon this class is composed of standards used in the
existing information communication systems, but which should not be used in new systems. After a
certain period of time, these standards are classified as “Dismissed”.
10. Considered properties for which it is decided that they may not be classified neither as “Recommended”
nor as “Inventory”, are classified as “Dismissed”.
9
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
3. INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
This section, through tables with specifications, defines the Interoperability Standards List, which is harmonized
with the requirements and objectives of the National Interoperability Framework and which covers aspects of
technical interoperability of the NIF. Furthermore, the List of Standards established a set of standards in a
structural way, with the following note: how they are divided into sections based on the model of layers, how they
are classified and to which status levels they belong. Specification given in the Table includes: name of the
standard, status, version, as well as the source – or a URL/web address for access to detailed specifications and
data/information for a recommended standard.
3.1 NETWORK LAYER
In this section, specifications related to data transfer are presented, such as network protocols, representing the
key field for interoperability. Without the agreement on standards for introducing the network, it is difficult, or even
impossible to establish communication among the systems. Interoperability Standards List uses a subset of widely
used Internet protocols suites.
Table 1 Specification for the network layer
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
Network protocols
IP
DNS
Internet Protocol
v.4
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791 +RFC 1349
v.6
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460 + RFC
5095, RFC 5722, RFC 5871, RFC 6437
Accepted
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034 ; +RFC
1101, RFC 1183, RFC 1348, RFC 1876, RFC
1982, RFC 2065, RFC 2181, RFC 2308, RFC
2535, RFC 4033, RFC 4034, RFC 4035, RFC
4343, RFC 4035, RFC 4592, RFC 5936
Domain Name System
Accepted
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035 +RFC
1995, RFC 1996, RFC 2136, RFC 2137, RFC
2845, RFC 3425, RFC 3658, RFC 5966
Directory protocols
LDAP
Lightweight Directory AccessProtocol
Recommended
v3
http://www.bind9.net/rfc-ldap
Data and message transfer protocols
FTP
File Transfer Protocol Status
Recommended
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc959 +RFC 2228,
RFC 2640, RFC 2773, RFC 3659, RFC 5797
10
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
HTTP
HyperText Transfer Protocol
Recommended
HTTPS
WebDAV
(OSCI)Transport
HyperText Transfer Protocol running
over SSL/ТLS
World Wide Web Distributed
Authoring and Versioning
Online Service Computer Interface
(OSCI) - Transport
Version
v1.1
Source
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616 + RFC
2817, RFC 5785, RFC 6266
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2818.txt +RFC
5785
Recommended
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818 +
rfc5785
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918 + RFC
5689
Recommended
Considered
v2.0
http://www.xoev.de/sixcms/media.php/13/
OSCI20_WSProfilingAndExtensionSpecification_Edition4.
pdf
http://www.xoev.de/sixcms/media.php/13/
OSCI2_TechnicalFeaturesOverview_EN.pdf
SCP
Session Control Protocol (which
enables that the server and the client
communicate through a single TCP
connection)
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/httpng-scp.html
Considered
http://www.ibiblio.org/ses/scp.html
E-mail transfer protocols
SMTP
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol –
Basic protocol of application layer for
e-mail transfer
Accepted
IMAP
Internet Message Access Protocol
Accepted
v4rev1
POP3
Post Office Protocol –
Protocol for transfer and e-mail
access
Accepted
v3
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1939 + RFC
1957, RFC 2449, RFC 6186
Accepted
v1.0
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045 + RFC
2184, RFC 2231, RFC 5335, RFC 6532
Recommended
v1.2
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12part0-20070427/
DSML
Directory Services Markup Language
–Service of language view for
markup/presentation of deposited
data
Considered
v2.0
http://www.oasisopen.org/committees/dsml/docs/DSMLv2.d
oc
UDDI
Universal Description, Discovery and
Integration – Registry based on XML,
for publishing, integration and
discovery of existing network services
Considered
v3.0.2
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3501 + RFC
4466, RFC 4469, RFC 4551, RFC 5032, RFC
5182, RFC 5738, RFC 6186
E-mail formats
MIME
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
SOAP
Simple Object Access Protocol –
Source simple protocol for object
access
Services for registers
http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.0.220041019.htm
11
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
3.2 DATA INTEGRATION LAYER
Data integration layer provides an overview of standards in the field of data exchange and access from various
functional fields to unambiguous information. It marks the transition from basic to integrated data or consolidated
data. This layer represents the transfer of data through the integration process.
Table 2 Data integration specifications layer
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
v.6.1.0
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.
1.0/
Basic Character Set
Unicode
Unicode
Accepted
UTF-8
UCS(Universal Character Set)
Transformation Format — 8-bit
Recommended
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3629.txt
Data processing
HTML
HyperText Markup Language –
Standardized language for hypertext
markup
Recommended
v4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
HTML
Hypertext Markup Language–
Standardized language for hypertext
markup
Recommended
v5.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
XHTML
Extensible Hypertext Markup
Language
Recommended
second
edition
XSL
Extensible Stylesheet Language
Recommended
v1.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/
XSLT
Extensible Stylesheet Language
Transformations
Recommended
v2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20
XQuery
XML Query Language
Recommended
v1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/
Recommended
v1.0
fifth
edition
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml20081126/
v1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/
v2.4.1
http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.4.1/
v1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
Structured data and data interchange
XML
Extensible Markup Language
Formats for data model interchange
XSD
XML Schema Definition Language
Accepted
XMI
XML Metadata Interchange - Object
model for program data interchange
Recommended
DTD
Document Type Definition
Inventory
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd.html
12
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
Packet/collective data
XML
Extensible Markup Language
Recommended
CSV
Comma-Separated Values
Recommended
v1.0
fifth
edition
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml20081126/
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4180
File compressing and archiving
ZIP
GZIP
TAR
ZIP –
Format for data compressing
Gnu ZIP (GZIP) –
Recommended
v4.5
http://www.pkware.com/documents/APPNO
TE/APPNOTE-4.5.0.txt
Recommended
v4.3
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1952
Recommended
v1.26
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/tar/
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/tar/tar-1.26.tar.gz
Format for data compressing
Tape Archive
3.3 BUSINESS SERVICES LAYER
Business services provide a description of services and data processing from the business activities perspective,
i.e. they map the technical components for useful business information.
Table 3 Business services specifications layer
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
Metadata (Discovery)
RDF
Resource Description Framework –
Guidelines for describing/presenting
information on resources on the web
Recommended
1.1.
Example
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/
Uniform Resource Identifier
URN
Considered
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2141.txt
ERD
Entity-Relationship-Diagram –
Structural aspect of the software
modeling – a method for presenting a
conceptual model of data deposited in
an information system
Recommended
http://www.erdiagrams.com/
UML
Unified Modelling Language – Unified
visual modeling language
Recommended
Uniform Resource Name
Data Modeling
v2.4.1
http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/
13
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
Business Process Modeling
WS-BPEL
Web Services Business Process
Execution Language– Web services
language for defining and describing
the performance of business
processes
BPMN
BPMN
Recommended
v2.0
http://docs.oasisopen.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0OS.html
Business Process Modelling Notation
Recommended
v1.2
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.2/
Business Process Modelling Notation
Considered
v2.0
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/
v2.4.1
http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.4.1/
Interchange formats for Business Process Modeling
XMI
XML Metadata Interchange Object model for interchange of
program data
Recommended
XPDL
XML Process Definition Language –
Standard for describing the process
which entirely reflects all objects
defined within BPMN
Considered
v2.1
http://www.xpdl.org/documents.html
EPML
EPC Markup Language –
Language for electronic product code
markup
Considered
v1.2
http://www.mendling.com/EPML/
Shareable Content Object Reference
Model
Considered
E-Learning
SCORM
v2004
fourth
edition
http://www.adlnet.gov/scorm/scorm-20044th/
Service View
http://www.oasisopen.org/committees/dsml/docs/DSMLv2.d
oc
DSML
Directory Services Markup Language
Service of language overview for
markup/presenting deposited data
Considered
v2.0
UDDI
Universal Description, Discovery and
Integration – Registry based on XML,
for publishing, integration and
discovery of existing service in the
network
Considered
v3.0.2
http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.0.220041019.htm
Geography Information
GML
Geography Markup Language
Accepted
v3.3
https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artif
act_id=46568
CityGML
City Geography Markup Language
Recommended
v1.0.0
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/ci
tygml
GeoTIFF
Geo Tagged Image File Format –
Standard file format for scanning,
depositing and interchanging geo
tagged images
Recommended
v1.8.2
http://www.remotesensing.org/geotiff/spec/
geotiffhome.html
14
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
WFS
Web Feature Service –
Internet service defining the structure
of geo-objects
Accepted
v2.0
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/w
fs
WMS
Web Map Service –
(specification of service interface)
Accepted
v1.3.0
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/w
ms
V2.0
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/w
cs
WCS
SFA-2
Web Coverage Service –
Web service for e-search of geospatial
data
Simple Feature Access – Part 2:
SQLOption
Accepted
Version
Active
Source
Recommended
v1.2.1
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sf
s
Considered
v3.0
http://docs.oasisopen.org/regrep/v3.0/regrep-3.0-os.zip
Registry Service
ebXML
RIM и RS
E-business Extensible Markup
Language, Registry Information
Model, and Registry Services –
Repository which supports
infrastructure which provides
discovery of services, products,
business processes and documents in
the process of e-business
Interchange of data and information sent via channels
RSS
Really Simple Syndication–
Interchange format
Recommended
V2.0
ATOM
Syndication Format –
Interchange format
Recommended
v1.0
http://www.rss-specifications.com/rssspecifications.htm
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287 +
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988
Voice Transfer through Internet Protocol (VoIP)
SIP
Session Initiation Protocol
H.323
H.323 – Signaling and controlling
protocol in VoIP networks.
A recommendation which defines
protocols in charge of services of
multimedia communication through
various networks
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261 + RFC
3265, RFC 3853, RFC 4320, RFC 4916, RFC
5393, RFC 5621, RFC 5626, RFC 5630, RFC
5922, RFC 5954, RFC 6026, RFC 6141
Recommended
Recommended
12/09
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.323-200912I/en
15
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
3.4 ACCESS AND PRESENTATION LAYER
In this section, standards and guidelines are presented which show the manner in which users build web
presentations and access the system. A web presentation is a place on the Internet, and it represents a set of web
pages/applications, which may contain text, images, videos and other multimedia contents composed as a whole.
Applications represent an interface between the users and the network. Standards and Guidelines in this section
are given in the following:
-
Table 4
Access and presentation specification layer
-
Table 4.1
Specification for еAccessibility intended for the disabled persons
Table 4 Access and presentation specification layer
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
Web site presentation
Guidelines for making web sites of state
administration bodies of the Republic of
Serbia
Criteria for evaluating web sites of state
administration –
Criteria for evaluating coordination of
web presentations of the state
administration bodies in 2013 with
‘’Guidelines for making web sites of
state administration bodies of the
Republic of Serbia v.4.0“
Recommendations for the development
of local self-government web site
Accepted
v4.0
http://digitalnaagenda.gov.rs/media/docs/
smernice_4_0.pdf
Accepted
v.2.0
http://digitalnaagenda.gov.rs/media/docs/
kriterijumi_za_izradu_web_prezentacija_org
ana_drzavne_uprave_2013.pdf
http://digitalnaagenda.gov.rs/media/docs/
preporuke_za_izradu_web_prezentacija_20
09.pdf
Recommended
Web content presentation
HTML
HyperText Markup Language–
Standardized hypertext markup
language
Recommended
v4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
HTML
Hypertext Markup Language–
Standardized hypertext markup
language
Recommended
v.5.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
XHTML
Extensible HyperТext Markup Language
Extensible and compatible hypertext
markup language
Recommended
second
edition
Recommended
v.2.0
CSS
Cascading Style Sheets –
Formatting language due to which the
appearance of the web page elements
is defined
v1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS219980512/
16
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
SMIL
Synchronized Multimedia Integration
Language
Considered
Version
v3.0
Source
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SMIL320081201/
Active content
ECMA262
ECMAScript® Language Specification,
harmonized with III edition of standards
ISO/IEC 16262:2011 – ЕCМА script
standardized language specification
Recommended
edition
5.1
http://www.ecmainternational.org/publications/standards/E
cma-262.htm
Forms
XForms
XFormа –
XML application for integration in other
markup languages (XHTML, ODF or
SVG)
Recommended
v1.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xforms20091020/#concepts-xhtml
Document forms
Portable Document Format
PDF
SRPS ISO 32000-1: 2013 – Document
managing — Portable Document Format
— Part 1: PDF 1.7
Recommended
v1.7
http://www.iss.rs/standard/?natstandard_
document_id=42634
ODF
Open Document Format for Office
Applications
Recommended
v1.1
http://docs.oasisopen.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocumentv1.1-html/OpenDocument-v1.1.html
OOXML
Office Open XML / ISO/IEC 295001:2012 Office open XMLformat
Considered
.doc, .xls,
.ppt
Microsoft Office file formats –
Formats/document extensions/
files formed in Microsoft Office
Inventory
.docx,
.xlsx,
.pptx
Microsoft Office file formats –
Formats/document extensions/
files formed in Microsoft Office
Recommended
.оdt,.fodt,
.odp,.fodp,
.ods, .fods,
.odg, .fodg
Open Office file format –
Formats/document extensions/
files formed in Microsoft Office
Inventory
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalo
gue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumb
er=61750
http://www.microsoft.com/enus/download/details.aspx?id=3
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msu
sa/en_US/html/pbpage.OfficeCompare
http://www.microsoft.com/enus/download/details.aspx?id=3
v.1.2
http://opendocumentformat.org/
Image forms
JPEG
Joint Photographic Experts Group –
Standard for compressed format of
image files
Recommended
PNG
Portable Network Graphics –
Open bitmap image format
Recommended
v1.02
v1.2
second
edition
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/
http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg/index.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/
17
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
GIF
Graphics Interchange Format
Recommended
v89a
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/GIF/specgif89a.txt
TIFF
Tag-based Image File Format –
File format for scanning, depositing and
interchange of graphic images
Recommended
v6.0
http://partners.adobe.com/public/develop
er/en/tiff/TIFF6.pdf
GeoTIFF
Geo Tagged Image File Format - File
format for scanning, depositing and
interchange of geo-tagged images
Recommended
v1.8.2
http://www.remotesensing.org/geotiff/spe
c/geotiffhome.html
SVG
Scalable Vector Graphics –
Vector graphics recording format
Recommended
v1.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG1120030114/
Version
Source
Movement
GIF
Graphics Interchange Format
Recommended
v89a
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/GIF/specgif89a.txt
SVG
Scalable Vector Graphics –
Vector graphics recording format
Recommended
v1.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG1120030114/
ААC
Advanced Audio Coding –
Audio data defining format
Recommended
Part 7
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catal
ogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=
43345
MP3
MP3/ MPEG-1 or MPEG-2–
Audio data defining format
Recommended
Audio
layer 3
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5219 +
rfc3119
Audio data
http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/vorbis/
Vorbis
WMA
Vorbis – Audio data defining open
software
Windows Media Audio – Audio data
defining format
Recommended
Recommended
v1.3.4
v5.5
+
http://www.freecodecs.com/download/Vorbis.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/enus/search/Results.aspx?q=Windows+Medi
a+Audio +
http://www.microsoft.com/enus/search/DownloadResults.aspx?q=Wind
ows%20Media%20Audio
Video data
Recommended
Part
14
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catal
ogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=
38538
H.264/MPEG-4, Part 10, or AVC - Video
data compression format
Recommended
Part
10
http://www.h264encoder.com/
Windows Media Video–
Video data defining format
Recommended
ver. for
MP3
MP4
MPEG-4 , ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003
A format defining MPEG-4 contents
depositing in files
H.264/
MPEG-4
FLV
http://www.flv.com/flvdownloader.html
18
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
WMV
Windows Media Video–
Video data defining format
Recommended
Version
v9
Source
http://www.microsoft.com/enus/download/details.aspx?id=6191
Audio and video streaming
RTSP
RTP/
RTCP
Real Time Streaming Protocol –
Protocol for control of real time
distribution of audio and video contents
/data
Recommended
Real Time Transport Protocol/ Real
Time Transport Control Protocol
Real time transport and control
protocols of audio and video
contents/data through IP networks
Recommended
STD1
STD 1
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2326
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3550 +
rfc1889
Table 4.1 Specification for еAccessibility intended for the disabled persons
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
Web content accessibility
WCAG 1.0
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines1.0
Recommended
v1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
WCAG 2.0
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines2.0
Recommended
v2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Authoring tools accessibility (guidelines for software and services)
ATAG 1.0
ATAG 2.0
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines1.0
Recommended
v1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
Recommended
v2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/
User agent accessibility (Internet browsers, media players, supporting technologies)
UAAG1.0
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines1.0
Recommended
v1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/
19
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
3.5 WEB SERVICE LAYER
Web service layer is related to a set of communication protocols used on the Internet. Users of the web service
system are provided with a possibility of accessing public data via a consistent set of program interfaces.
Furthermore, by using the recommended standards all subjects in state administration are enabled to automate
their access to offered data and use them in their own information systems in the way which is most suitable to
their needs.
For the state administration web services would be compatible, they should support:
-
Interoperability – signifies the use of mutual standards and guidelines for interoperability capacity
building among institutions;
-
Security – for providing information interchange which should be adequately protected;
-
Flexibility – for providing easier information and data sharing among institutions.
Web services represent a set of standardized applications for connecting and integrating applications established
on the web, through the Internet. This document defines them separately, considering that they include a number
of layer models. It is of crucial importance that the services which use web services should reach an agreement on
the data use and semantics. When the systems use the web service architecture, the following services are
applied.
Table 5 Web service specification layer
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
Universal Description, Discovery and
Integration – Registry based on XML,
for publishing, integration and
discovery of existing services on the
network
Considered
v3.0.2
http://uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.0.220041019.htm
WSDL
Web Services Description Language
Recommended
v1.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl
WSDL
Web Services Description Language
Considered
v2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/
Web service registry request
UDDI
Description
20
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
ebXML
RIM и RS
E-business Extensible Markup
Language, Registry Information
Model, and Registry Services –
A repository supporting the
infrastructure which enables
discovery of services,products,
business processes and documents in
the process of e-business activities
Considered
v3.0
http://docs.oasisopen.org/regrep/v3.0/regrep-3.0-os.zip
WS-UBL
Universal Business Language – A
business language which defines the
library of standard elements of XML
business documents such as:
purchase orders and invoices
Recommended
V2.1
https://www.oasisopen.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbr
ev=ubl
v1.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP20000508/
Communication
SOAP
Simple Object Access Protocol –
Protocol for object and web services
access on the web.
Inventory
SOAP
Simple Object Access Protocol Protocol for object and services
access on the web
Recommended
WSRP
Web Services for Remote Portlets
Recommended
v1.2
second
edition
v2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-soap12part0-20070427/
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrp/v2/wsrp2.0-spec-os-01.pdf
Profiles for defining interoperability of basic standards for web services
WS-I
Basic Profile Version 1.0 (Final
Material)(WS-I) – Basic profile
Recommended
v1.0
http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile1.0-2004-04-16.html
WS-I
Basic Profile Version 1.2(Final
Material)(WS-I)– Basic profile
Recommended
v1.2
http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.22010-11-09.html
WS-I
Basic Profile Version 2.0(Final
Material)(WS-I)– Basic profile
Recommended
v2.0
http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-2.02010-11-09.html
Web services creating process (concept, implementation, application)
WS-CDL
Web Services Choreography
Description Language–
Description language for cooperation
of participants in creating and
building a mutual service
Considered
v1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/
WSCI
The Web Service Choreography
Interface – Interface description
language
Recommended
v1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsci/
BTP
Business Transaction Protocol TCBusiness transactions management
protocol between G2B,B2B
https://www.oasisopen.org/committees/download.php/1184/2002
-06-03.BTP_cttee_spec_1.0.pdf
Considered
v1.1
+
https://www.oasisopen.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbr
ev=business-transaction
21
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
3.6 SECURITY LAYER
Security is presented in the NIF as a segment connecting all levels and indicating the fact that it is necessary to
plan security in the system, instead of adding it as another top layer. Security may be perceived from four major
perspectives:
•
Confidentiality: assuring that the information is available only to the persons authorized to have access.
•
Integrity: assuring that the information has not been changed or modified without the knowledge about it.
•
Availability: assuring that the authorized users have access to information and suitable resources based
on their needs.
•
Responsibility: capacity of the system to monitor who or what has access to data, carries out a
transaction or makes changes in the system.
Institutions are encouraged to consider the security aspect in terms of interoperability projects, by using all
contexts and to enforce a suitable policy and standards. The list which follows includes the standards which have
been composed so that they offer various levels of security in the layers. Standards and business policy provide
advice and instructions concerning the type of levels which might be required.
Table 6 Security specifications
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
General security requests
SRPS
ISO/IEC
27001:2
014 (sr)
Information technology —
Security techniques —
Information security management
systems - Requests
Accepted
http://www.iss.rs/standard/?natstandard_do
cument_id=50089
SRPS
ISO/IEC
15408-1:
2014 (en)
Information technology —
Security techniques —
- Criteria for evaluating IT security Part 1: Introduction and universal
model
Recommended
http://www.iss.rs/standard/?natstandard_do
cument_id=47805
Network layer
HTTPS
IP-SEC
HyperText Transfer Protocol running
over SSL –
Transfer protocol of hypertext
documents via SSL/ТLS
Accepted
IP Security Protocol Charter– Internet
protocol security
Recommended
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2818.txt +RFC
5785
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818 +
rfc5785
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4301.txt
22
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
ESP
IP Encapsulating Security PayloadIP expanded serial port – A protocol
enabling provision of integrity, data
confidentiality, data source
authentication and optional hack
attack security
Recommended
TLS
Transport Layer Security
Recommended
Version
Source
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4303.txt
v1.2
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246 + RFC
5746, RFC 5878, RFC 6176
Data integration layer
A common
system
http://www.t7ev.org/ws/T7-de/Common-PKIv20-Spezifikation
Common PKI Specifications for
Interoperable Applications
Recommended
Encryption
XML-Encryption Syntax and
Processing
Recommended
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-core/
CAdES
CMS Advanced Electronic Signatures
Recommended
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5126.html
PKI
XML
XadES
SRPS ETSI TS 101 903
v1.4.2:2012 (en)
E-signatures and infrastructures (ESI)
– XML improved e-signatures (XAdES)
v2.0
www.t7ev.org/AppFile/GetFile/e79d3677f2a0-4c8f-b9ac-6ef41f169857
Recommended
v1.4.2
http://www.iss.rs/standard/?natstandard_do
cument_id=38121
Recommended
v1.1.1
http://www.iss.rs/standard/?natstandard_do
cument_id=38061
Recommended
v1.2.1
http://www.iss.rs/standard/?natstandard_do
cument_id=38063
Recommended
v1.2.1
http://www.iss.rs/standard/?natstandard_do
cument_id=38064
SRPS ETSI TS 102 778-1
v1.1.1:2011 (en)
PAdES
E-signatures and infrastructures (ESI)
– PDF improved profiles of esignatures– Part 1: PAdES view –
Framework document for PadES
SRPS ETSI TS 102 778-2
v1.2.1:2011 (en)
PAdES
E-signatures and infrastructures (ESI)
– PDF improved profiles of esignatures– Part 2: Basic PAdES –
Profile based on ISO 32000-1
SRPS ETSI TS 102 778-3
v1.2.1:2011 (en)
PAdES
E-signatures and infrastructures (ESI)
– PDF improved profiles of esignatures– Part 3: ImprovedPAdES –
PAdES-BES и PAdES-EPES profiles
23
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
Name of the standard
Status
Version
Source
PadES
SRPS ETSI TS 102 778-4
v1.1.2:2011 (en)
E-signatures and infrastructures (ESI)
– PDF improved profiles of esignatures– Part 4: Long-term PAdES
– PAdES-LTV profile
Recommended
v1.1.2
http://www.iss.rs/standard/?natstandard_do
cument_id=38065
PAdES
SRPS ETSI TS 102 778-5
v1.1.2:2011 (en)
E-signatures and infrastructures (ESI)
– PDF improved profiles of esignatures– Part 5: PadES for XML
content –Profiles for XadES
signatures
Recommended
v1.1.2
http://www.iss.rs/standard/?natstandard_do
cument_id=38066
XMLDigital
signature
XM L -Digital signature
Recommended
DSS
OASIS
OASIS Digital Signature Services –
Service (XML interface) for digital
signatures for web services and other
applications
Recommended
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsigcore-20020212 +
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/
v1.0
http://www.oasisopen.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbr
ev=dss
Business services layer
S/MIME
Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions – Secure/multipurpose
standard for the public encrypting key
and signing MIME data
v3.2
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5751
v1.1
http://www.oasisopen.org/specs/index.php#wssv1.1
v1.3
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/wstrust/200512/ws-trust-1.3-os.pdf
v1.1
http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub
/software/dw/specs/ws-fed/WS-FederationV1-1B.pdf
Recommended
v2.0
http://docs.oasisopen.org/security/saml/v2.0/
Recommended
v2.0
http://www.oasisopen.org/standards#xacmlv2.0
Recommended
Web service layer
WS-Security
WS-Trust
WSFederation
WS - Security –OASIS standard –
Standards defining web services
security elements
WS-Trust – OASIS standard –Provides
framework for trust models which
enable Web services with secure
interoperability
WS-Federation – Specification of the
web services federation mechanisms
for identity and attributes mediation,
authentication, authorization and
privacy
SAML
Security Assertion Markup Language
A standard which determines the
structure of the document for
securing and protecting data which
are network transferred among
various systems
XACML
Extensible Access Control Markup
Language – A language defining
access rights as well as about
sending/receiving requests/
responses to the system which
enforces access control
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
24
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Standard
ID-WSF
WSSecurity
Name of the standard
Liberty Identity Web Services
Framework – WS-Security
Discovering intrusion into the web
service operation area
Status
Considered
Version
v2.0
Source
http://www.projectliberty.org/resource_cente
r/specifications/liberty_alliance_id_wsf_2_0_
specifications/?f=resource_center/specificati
ons/liberty_alliance_id_wsf_2_0_specificatio
ns
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
RFC3467
Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate Policy and
Certification Practices Framework A framework of general rights of
public key infrastructure functioning,
certification policy and certification
practices framework
Recommended
ETSI TS
102 176
Algorithms and Parameters for
Secure Electronic Signatures
Accepted
AES
Advanced Encryption Standard –
Advanced Encryption Standard and
information decrypting, which
specifies the FIPS approved
cryptographic algorithm used for edata security
Accepted
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips19
7/fips-197.pdf
RSA
RSA Rivest-Shamir-Adleman-(RivestŠamir-Ejdlman) –
Standard by which asymmetric
encryption is performed
(Public Key Cryptography –PKC)
Recommended
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Rsapaper.
pdf
Accepted
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips18
0-3/fips180-3_final.pdf
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3467.txt
v2.0.0
Part1
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/102100_
102199/10217601/02.00.00_60/ts_1021
7601v020000p.pdf
Encryption
Data Hashing
SHA-2
Secure Hash Algorithm
25
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
4. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Addendum: The most used abbreviations and acronyms in this document:
Abbreviations and
acronyms
Definitions
AAC
Advanced Audio Coding
AES
Advance Encryption Algorithm
ATAG
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
ATOM SF
ATOM Syndication Format
BPMN
Business Process Modeling Notation
CESG
Communications Electronics Security Group (CESG), part of GCHQ,
http://www.cesg.gov.uk/Pages/homepage.aspx
CityGML
City Geography Markup Language
CSS
Cascading Style Sheets
.csv
Comma Separated Value format
DIME
Direct Internet Message Encapsulation
DNS
Domain name services
DSML
Directory Services Markup Language
DTD
Document Type Definition
еbXML
E-business Extensible Markup Language
ECMA
European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA),
http://www.ecma-international.org/
EPAN
The European Public Administration Network(EPAN) - http://www.eupan.eu/
EPML
EPC Markup Language
ERD
Entity Relationship Diagram
ESP
Encapsulation Security Protocol
ETSI
European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI), http://www.etsi.org/
FTP
File Transfer Protocol
GeoTIFF
Geo Tagged Image File Format
.gif
Graphics Interchange Format
GML
Geography Markup Language
26
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Abbreviations and
acronyms
Definitions
.gz
GZIP Compression File Format
H.323
Packet-based multimedia communications systems
HTML
HyperТext Markup Language
HTTP
HyperТext Transfer Protocol
IDABC
Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services to public Administrations,
Businesses and Citizens(IDABC) - http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/
IEEE
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), http://www.ieee.org
IETF
Internet Engineering Task Force
IMAP
Internet Message Access Protocol
IP
Internet Protocol
IP-SEC
IP Security Protocol Charter
JPEG
Joint Photographic Experts Group
.jpg
Joint Photographic Experts Group File Format
ISO/IEC
International Standards Organization (ISO), http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html
LAN
Local area Network
LDAP
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
MEP
Message Exchange Pattern
MIME
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
MOM
Message Oriented Middleware
mp3
MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group) Audio Layer 3
mp4
MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group) Audio Layer 4
MPEG
Moving Picture Experts Group
MTOM
Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism
NTSAL
Network Transmission Security Assertion Level
.NET
Microsoft Windows Platform
OASIS
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS),
https://www.oasis-open.org
ODF
Open Document Format
OOXML
Office Open XML
27
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Abbreviations and
acronyms
Definitions
OSCI
Online Services Computer Interface
.pdf
Portable Document Format
.png
Portable Network Graphics
POP
Post Office Protocol
PRODML
Production Markup Language
RDF
Resource Description Framework
RFC
Request for Comments
RIM
Registry Information Model
RM
Real Media
RPC
Remote Procedure Call
RS
Registry Services
RSA
Rivest-Shamir-Adleman
.rtf
Rich Text Format
RTSP
SAGA
Real Time Streaming Protocol
Standards and Architectures for eGovernment Applications (SAGA), v.5.1.0.
http://www.ogd.cc/dokument/saga-modul-grundlagen-version-de-bund-5-1-0/
SAML
Security Assertion Markup Language
SCORM
Shareable Content Object Reference Model
SCP
Session Control Protocol
SFA-2
Simple Feature Access - Part 2
SHA-2
Secure Hash Algorithm 2
SIP
Session Initiation Protocol
SMIL
Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language
S/MIME
Secure Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
SMTP
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
SOA
Service Oriented Architecture
SOAP
Simple Object Access Protocol
SSL
Secure Sockets Layer
.svg
Scalable Vector Graphics
28
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Abbreviations and
acronyms
Definitions
.tar
Tape Archive File Format
TCP
Transmission Control Protocol
.tif
Tagged Image File Format
TIFF
Tag-based Image File Format
TLS
Transport Layer Security
UAAG
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines
UCS
Universal Character Set
UDDI
Universal Description, Discovery and Integration
UML
Unified Modeling Language
URN
Uniform Resource Name
UTF
Universal Transformation Format
VoIP
Voice over Internet Protocol
WAN
Wide Area Network
WebDAV
World Wide Web Distributed Authoring Versioning
W3C
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), www.w3.org/
WCAG
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
WCS
Web Coverage Service
WFS
Web Feature Service
.wma
Windows Media Audio
.wmv
Windows Media Video
WMS
Web Map Service
WS
Web Services
WS-BPEL
Web Services – Business Process Execution Language
WS-DS
Web Services Digital Signature - XML Signatures- XML Signatures are digital signatures,
which may be used for signing XML messages, unlike other mechanisms of digital signatures,
vXML. Any part of the message can be signed (for example, SOAP header) and it is not limted
only for signing the entire document.
WSDL
Web Services Description Language
WS-I
Web Services Interoperability Organization (WS-I), www.ws-i.org
29
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Abbreviations and
acronyms
Definitions
WSRP
Web Services for Remote Portlets
WSS-SAML
Web Services Security SAML Token
WSS-TS
Web Services Security Timestamp Token
WSS-UNT
Web Services Security UserName Token
WSS-X.509CT
Web Service Security X509 Certificate Token
XACML
Extensible Access Control Markup Language
XHTML
Extensible Hypertext Markup Language
XMI
XML Metadata Interchange
XML
Extensible Markup Language
XOP
XML-binary Optimized Packaging
XPDL
XML Process Definition language
XSD
XML Schema Definition Language
XSG
XML Security Gateway - XML Security Gateways are purpose built XML security
appliances and it is also used in Web Services deployments.
XSL
Extensible Stylesheet Language
XQuery
XML Query Language
Notice:
Standards /Specifications may be found at the following links:
- CESG - http://www.cesg.gov.uk
-
ECMA -http://www.ecma-international.org/
-
ETSI - http://www.etsi.org/
-
IEEE - http://www.ieee.org
-
IETFRFC- http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html
-
ITU - http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Pages/default.aspx
-
ISO - http://www.iso.org
-
OASIS - http://www.oasis-open.org
-
SRPS ISO - http://www.iss.rs/standard
-
SRPS ETSI- http://www.iss.rs/standard
-
W3C -http://www.w3.org/TR/
-
WS-I - www.ws-i.org
30
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0
INTEROPERABILITY STANDARDS LIST
Government of the Republic of Serbia
Ministry of State Administration and Local Self-Government
DIRECTORATE FOR E-GOVERNMENT
Dečanska 8а, 11000 Belgrade
Phone: 011/ 33 40 361
Fax: 011/ 33 41 885
E-mail: office@deu.gov.rs
Web address: www.deu.gov.rs
Publication date: June 2014
The text in this document may be used, copied and reproduced free of charge in any format or media, without
a written consent. The document shall not be used for commercial purposes. The content of the document
may be used for the needs of the state administration, suppliers/providers of the ICT services to the state
administration bodies, as well as for the individual needs of users, for the purpose of establishing and
implementing interoperability in the state administration bodies of the Republic of Serbia, pursuant to the
National Interoperability Framework. Inappropriate usage of any part of the document is unauthorized.
31
Directorate for e-Government
Interoperability Standards List v.1.0