The Hardware Standards table was created as a reference guide of the widely used hardware standards within the life sciences and laboratory automation community. Also included in the table are current ratings for eight different categories: Adoption, Maturity, Complexity, Need/Market Size, User Popularity, Coverage, Vendor Support and Activity. (See the key to the ratings for each category below.
Click on standard name to learn more about its type, sub-type and governing body. At the bottom of each hardware standard page, you will have the opportunity to rate the standard and its categories on a 1-5 scale.
The rating will be monitored and updated on a monthly basis.
Questions can be sent to Emily Yamasaki, SLAS Scientific Manager.
| Standard Name | Adoption | Maturity | Complexity | Need/Market Size | User Popularity | Coverage | Vendor Support | Activity |
| SiLA Type: Software Sub-type: Instrument Interface |
4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| AniML Type: Software Sub-type: Data Format |
4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Allotrope (ADF) Type: Software Sub-type: Data Format |
1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Allotrope Simplified Model (ASM) Type: Software Sub-type: Data Format |
3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| SBS Labware Type: Labware Sub-type: Labware Definition |
5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 |
| OPC UA LADS Type: Software Sub-type: Instrument Interface |
1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| RESTful HTTP API Type: Software Sub-type: Instrument Interface |
5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| JSON Type: Software Sub-type: Data Format |
5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| gRPC Type: Software Sub-type: Instrument Interface |
1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| CSV Type: Software Sub-type: Data Format |
5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 |
| BPMN Type: Software Sub-type: Ontology schema |
1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| XML Type: Software Sub-type: Data Format |
5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| PyLabRobot Type: Software Sub-type: Instrument Interface |
1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
Adoption
1 – Lab only, 5 – Global
Maturity
1 – Immature, 5 – Mature
Complexity
1 – Low, 5 – High
Activity
Is this standard actively worked on and maintained? Are there guidelines for how to contribute?
1 – standard is not actively developed, 3 – standard is occasionally reviewed, 5 – standard is in active development
Lab Auto User Popularity
How many organizations are aware of and using this standard?
1 – None, 3 – Some, 5 – A large number
Need/Market Size
What is the total market size that would benefit from this standard?
1 – no SLAS members, 3 – some SLAS members, 5 – all SLAS members
Coverage
How much of the target domain does the standard cover?
1 – None, 3 – Some, 5 – Full
Vendor Support
How many vendors support/use this standard? Are vendors an active member of this standard's community?
1 – Not supported by lab automation mfgs, 3 – adopted by major lab automation mfgs, 5 – adopted by all lab automation mfgs
Activity
Is this standard being actively worked on and maintained? Are there guidelines for how to contribute?
1 – standard is not actively developed, 3 – standard is occasionally reviewed, 5 – standard is in active development
