Standards Database

The Hardware Standards table was created as a reference guide to widely used hardware standards in 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 the standard name to learn more about its type, subtype 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 monthly.

Questions can be sent to SLAS Assistant Scientific Director Emily Yamasaki, PhD.

Standards Initiatives Topical Interest Group

Join the conversation on data and hardware standardization and connect with the community via the Standards Initiatives Topical Interest Group in CONNECTED.

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
ANSI/SLAS Microplate Standards
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

Rating Scale Key

Adoption
1 – Lab only, 5 – Global

Maturity
1 – Immature, 5 – Mature

Complexity
1 – Low, 5 – High

Activity
Is this standard actively maintained and updated? 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 active members 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