Hi,
I see. common-lib-terms in entitlement attribute or usage of eduPerson(Scoped)Affiliation are fine for authorisation handling based on single contract with publisher, but not sufficient for multiple contracts. The multiple contracts are pretty common in Czech Republic.
Cheers
Jiri
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 20:55, Peter Schober peter.schober@univie.ac.at wrote:
- Jiri Pavlik jiri.pavlik@mzk.cz [2019-03-20 21:18]:
do you handle multiple contracts in Austria, Peter?
ACOnet (the hat I'm wearing for this effort) does not handle e-resource contracts on behalf of institutions at this time.
In many cases there's no central legal entity that holds these contracts but individual (per-publisher) consortia where each institution licenses individually, but all buying "in-bulk" for cheaper licenses. Cf. https://konsortien.at run by https://www.obvsg.at
University subscribes different content sets for different user groups with a provider.
That use-case may exist but is not handled (well, or at all) by the eduPerson(Scoped)Affiliation attribute the guideline document (and Peter's email) recommended, AFAIR. So I was merely commenting on the use of the common-lib-terms entitlement attribute instead of the eduPerson(Scoped)Affiliation attribute but for the /same/ use-case, i.e., site-licenses that do not differentiate per department or similar schemes. If that is what you need you'll need something else anyway.
FWIW, I'm not aware of such licensing differentiation going on in Austria. AFAIK both publishers and institutions prefer to licese for the institutional core constituencies and not per department. (The publisher probably for higher total fees and the institutions for lower per-capita costs and lower management effforts, I'm guessing.)
But I can ask around or get someone e.g. from OBVSG subscribed to this list, if you think that would help. OBVSG knows what's going on in .at but does not have the technical knowledge, that's more on our side.)
Best, -peter