Hi Nick,
this is IMO a very good idea and was my first thought when I heard that RA21 supports Coco, which version ever. An entity category for commercial publisher's offerings would be a much better way to specify respective attribute release policy.
@all: Entity categories allow for configuring release policies per group of services instead of per individual Service Provider.
Cheers,
Peter G.
If you think this is a mistake you can provide your input into the amendment process that will likely begin soon for an R&S "2.0" spec, but as it stands the R&S spec and FIM4L use-cases have zero overlap.
This group may want to consider creating a parallel entity category for access to electronic periodicals/other library resources.
Best Regards,
Nick
Am 09.04.19 um 23:02 schrieb Nick Roy:
On 9 Apr 2019, at 9:04, Peter Schober wrote:
- Jiri Pavlik jiri.pavlik@mzk.cz [2019-04-09 14:28]:
Do you find eduPersonEntitlement or eduPersonScopedAffiliation attribute better fit for authorisation when faculty, institute students and employee need to be recognised according to license terms?
Some SPs only support one (when talking about authorisation and entitlements I mean the "common-lib-terms" attribute value specifically), some can support both (with configuration; personally I'd wish the SPs would just check for one and then fall back to the other!), some may only support affiliations. That's the status quo which is therefore more complex than necessary, IMO -- at least as long as we're talking about institution-level licensing. (For anything more fine-grained than that both ePE=common-lib-terms and ePSA=whatever@example.edu are equally unsuited, as we've established earlier. So /that/ specific use-case would still need agreement and standardisation, AFAICT.)
I think I've made the case here previously that the "common-lib-terms" ePE value has the big advantage of being invariant and the same from every IDP and for every SP (for the use-case it's been defined for), whereas eduPersonScopedAffiliation handling usually requires bilateral negotiations between the institution and the e-resource provider (sometimes via a self-service web UI, sometimes by filling out spreadsheets with data that's already contained in the SAML Metadata of the federation, etc.) So for the same use-case ePE has clear advantages.
ePE with the "common-lib-terms" value is less common in some very large federations, though, e.g. within the UKfederation. That matters because effecting change there would mean having to convince potentially hundreds of service provider to change. (As long as those service providers also checked for the "common-lib-terms" ePE first and fell back to their current use of ePSA everything should "just work" for most every institution.)
However eduPersonEntitlement is missing in R&S attribute bundle.
That is irrelevant as the REFEDS Research & Scholarship specification explicitly states that it "should not be used for access to licensed content such as e-journals." ([1], Section 1, "Definition").
If you think this is a mistake you can provide your input into the amendment process that will likely begin soon for an R&S "2.0" spec, but as it stands the R&S spec and FIM4L use-cases have zero overlap.
This group may want to consider creating a parallel entity category for access to electronic periodicals/other library resources.
Best Regards,
Nick
-peter
[1] https://refeds.org/category/research-and-scholarship _______________________________________________ FIM4L mailing list FIM4L@lists.daasi.de http://lists.daasi.de/listinfo/fim4l
FIM4L mailing list FIM4L@lists.daasi.de http://lists.daasi.de/listinfo/fim4l