Hi,
1.) First of all, that was my major point, we need to separate publishers from research infrastructures and I think we can do it via R&S entity category
SP with R&S = research infrastructure that may get more personal data. SPs of publishers will not be able to categorise as R&S
I'm absolutely fine with that.
Our use case is IMO more straight forward: One IdP communicates with one or more publisher SPs, and the latter only need to know attributes that are known to the IdP. Thus group information would rather be "students in the faculty X", or "staff working in Department Y" and not "researcher working in Project Z"
That's also okay for me. Although I think R&S and publisher SPs may fuse in some cases in the future. But I see that nowadays it's more import to get FIM in libraries started at all, so I agree to focus the guidelines on this point. Maybe we can put a sentence or two about that focus in the guidelines? I'll think about it and make a suggestion in the document.
4.) Another preliminary remark: FIM4L does not want to write guidelines to all IDP operators, but only for the library part, i.e. for the policy concerning publisher SPs. Thus we might leave out the discussion of R&S, may be with the exception of writing, that we understand that commercial publishers will not flag their SP with R&S category.
I'll consider this in my suggestion.
Is there consensus about the above proposal?
Consent from my side.
Best, Gerrit
-- Gerrit Gragert, M.A. Ltg. IT-Services fuer die Digitale Bibliothek Abt. IDM 2.3
Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz Potsdamer Str. 33 10785 Berlin
Tel.: +49 30 266-43 22 30 Fax: +49 30 266-33 20 01 gerrit.gragert@sbb.spk-berlin.de www.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de