Specification By Example Ebook 14 !EXCLUSIVE!
This book covers a wide variety of types of station, and also the running of a station, involving building, staffing and setting up the imports that will be its life blood. You will read about the continued running of a station and the end result; profits. Finally, you will discover adventure hooks, setting suggestions and example stations to populate your Traveller universe with.
specification by example ebook 14
This specification defines the rules for structuring the file collection in the abstract (the "abstract container") and the rules for the representation of thisabstract container within a ZIP archive (the "ZIP container"). Therules for ZIP containers build upon the ZIP technologies used by [ODF]. OCF also defines a standardmethod for obfuscating embedded resources, such as fonts, for those EPUB Publications that require thisfunctionality.
This specification is one of a family of specificationsthat compose EPUB 3 [EPUB32], an interchange and delivery format for digital publications based on XMLand Web Standards. It is meant to be read and understood in concert with the other specifications thatmake up EPUB 3.
This specification was published by the EPUB 3 Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track. Please note that under the W3C Community Final Specification Agreement (FSA) other conditions apply. Learn more about W3C Community and Business Groups.
The OCF Abstract Container file system model uses a single common Root Directory forall of the contents. All Local Resources for the EPUB Publication are located withinthe directory tree headed by the Root Directory, but no specific file system structure for them ismandated by this specification.
For relative IRI references, the Base IRI [RFC3986] is determined by the relevant languagespecifications for the given file formats. For example, CSS defines how relative IRI references workin the context of CSS style sheets and property declarations [CSSSnapshot].
The File Name restrictions described in this section are designed to allow Path Namesand File Names to be used without modification on most commonly used operating systems. Thisspecification does not specify how an OCF Processor that is unable to represent OCF File andPath Names would compensate for this incompatibility.
Encrypted data replaces unencrypted data in an OCF Abstract Container. For example, if animage named photo.jpeg is encrypted, the contents of thephoto.jpeg resource SHOULD be replaced by its encrypted contents. Withinthe ZIP directory, encrypted files SHOULD be stored rather than Deflate-compressed.
In the following example, adapted from Section 2.2.1 of [XMLENC-CORE1] the resource image.jpeg isencrypted using a symmetric key algorithm (AES) and the symmetric key is furtherencrypted using an asymmetric key algorithm (RSA) with a key of John Smith.
This version of the OCF specification does not define metadata for use in themetadata.xml file. Container-level metadata MAY be defined in futureversions of this specification and in EPUB extension specifications.
This version of the OCF specification does not require a specific format for DRM information,but a future version might. The contents of the rights.xml SHOULD be onlynamespace-qualified elements [XML-NAMES] to avoid collision with a future format.
The [XMLDSIG-CORE1] specification does not associate any semantics with a signature; anagent might include semantic information, for example, by adding information to theSignature element that describes the signature. The [XMLDSIG-CORE1] specificationdescribes how additional information can be added to a signature, such as by use theSignatureProperties element.
The following XML expression shows the content of an example signatures.xmlfile, and is based on the examples found in Section2 of [XMLDSIG-CORE1]. It contains one signature, and the signature applies totwo resources, EPUB/book.xhtml andEPUB/images/cover.jpeg, in the container.
While this simplicity of ZIP files is quite useful, it also poses a problem when ease of extractionof resources is not a desired side-effect of not encrypting them. An Author who wishes toinclude a third-party font, for example, typically does not want that font extracted and re-used byothers. More critically, many commercial fonts allow embedding, but embedding a font implies makingit an integral part of the EPUB Publication, not just providing the original font file along withthe content.
It is beyond the scope of this specification to provide a digital rights management or enforcementsystem for such resources. This section instead defines a method of obfuscation that will requireadditional work on the part of the final OCF recipient to gain general access to any obfuscatedresources.
Note that no claim is made in this specification that this constitutes encryption, nor does itguarantee that the resource will be secure from copyright infringement. It is hoped, however,that this algorithm will meet the requirements of most vendors who require some assurance that theirresources cannot simply be extracted by unzipping the Container.
The obfuscation of fonts was allowed prior to EPUB 3.0.1, but the order of obfuscation andcompression was not specified. As a result, invalid fonts might be encountered afterdecompression and de-obfuscation. In such instances, de-obfuscating the data before inflating itmight return a valid font. This specification does not require support for this method ofretrieval, as it is not compliant with this version of this specification, but it needs to beconsidered when supporting EPUB 3 content generally.
An EncryptedData element MUST be included for each obfuscated resource. EachEncryptedData element MUST include a child EncryptionMethod elementwhose Algorithm attribute is set to the value The presence of this attribute signals the useof the algorithm described in this specification. The path to the obfuscated resource MUST be listedin the CipherReference child of the CipherData element.
The EPUB OCF 3.2 specification supersedes both RFC4839 and the Open Container Format 2.0.1 specification, which is located at _library/epub/OCF_2.0.1_draft.doc, and whichalso uses the application/epub+zip media type.
DCMI metadata terms are expressed in RDF vocabularies for use in Linked Data. Creators of non-RDF metadata can use the terms in contexts such as XML, JSON, UML, or relational databases by disregarding both the global identifier and the formal implications of the RDF-specific aspects of term definitions. Such users can take domain, range, subproperty, and subclass relations as usage suggestions and focus on the natural-language text of definitions, usage notes, and examples.
Layers (and encapsulation) make it much easier to replace functionality within the application. For example, an application might initially use its own SQL Server database for persistence, but later could choose to use a cloud-based persistence strategy, or one behind a web API. If the application has properly encapsulated its persistence implementation within a logical layer, that SQL Server-specific layer could be replaced by a new one implementing the same public interface.
Clean architecture puts the business logic and application model at the center of the application. Instead of having business logic depend on data access or other infrastructure concerns, this dependency is inverted: infrastructure and implementation details depend on the Application Core. This functionality is achieved by defining abstractions, or interfaces, in the Application Core, which are then implemented by types defined in the Infrastructure layer. A common way of visualizing this architecture is to use a series of concentric circles, similar to an onion. Figure 5-7 shows an example of this style of architectural representation.
Using the typical eCommerce example, what you likely need to scale is the product information component. Many more customers browse products than purchase them. More customers use their basket than use the payment pipeline. Fewer customers add comments or view their purchase history. And you likely only have a handful of employees, in a single region, that need to manage the content and marketing campaigns. By scaling the monolithic design, all the code is deployed multiple times.
Recipients of this document are requested to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent claims or other intellectual property rights of which they may be aware that might be infringed by any implementation of the specification set forth in this document, and to provide supporting documentation.
IMS takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on IMS's procedures with respect to rights in IMS specifications can be found at the IMS Intellectual Property Rights webpage: _policyFinal.pdf .
The IMS Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) specification allows Learning Management Systems (LMS) or platforms to integrate remote tools and content in a standard way. LTI v1.3 builds on LTI v1.1 by incorporating a new model for security for message and service authentication.
An implementation of this specification that fails to implement a MUST/REQUIRED/SHALL requirement or fails to abide by a MUST NOT/SHALL NOT prohibition is considered nonconformant. SHOULD/SHOULD NOT/RECOMMENDED statements constitute a best practice. Ignoring a best practice does not violate conformance but a decision to disregard such guidance should be carefully considered. MAY/OPTIONAL statements indicate that implementers are entirely free to choose whether or not to implement the option.
LTI has its origins in the IMS Tools Interoperability specifications releasedin 2006. IMS then developed this into what is now referred to as Learning ToolsInteroperability, or LTI. In May 2010, IMS released a version named Basic LTIthat described a simple mechanism for launching tools and content from within anLMS. This provided a small but useful subset of the functionality thatunderlies LTI 1.3 and future releases. When IMS added a simple outcomes servicein March 2011, it renamed Basic LTI as LTI 1.0, with the newrelease including the simple outcomes service named as LTI 1.1.