On 14 May 2019, at 8:14, Peter Schober wrote:
- Peter Gietz peter.gietz@daasi.de [2019-05-14 16:06]:
No I don't think FIM4L should take a stand in this, but I just wanted to name the political context here to explain, why libraries are often negative towards RA21 and the SSO technology they are promoting.
OK
FIM4L only comes into play once access control exists, I think: That access control may not (and possibly should not) happen because of all the reasons one would want Open Access is something that needs to happen before, IMO.
Coco and R&S -> more personal data
Those exist and there's nothing to do for FIM4L other than maybe to promote their use where appropriate.
publisherCoCo -> less (but not zero) personal data
This use-case is still unclear to me, esp since you seem to be intending to force this category on (only) some publishers -- to/and prevent them from opt'ing in to "proper" CoCo to reviece more data? And who would ultimately decide on good (reviece PII) and bad (recieve less data) publishers?
I never spoke of two different kinds of publishers, only about different types of Service Providers (publishers vs. research infrastructures)
Then please s/publishers/Service Providers/ in the sentence above.
If each institution we're already there (every IDP decides for itself). If you're aiming for global agreement I'd sure like to know how you imagine that happening. So I'd invite you to actually write up the proposal for the category somewhere, in as specific language as you can. e.g. on the REFEDS wiki.
Well before I do so, I wanted to discuss here whether it would be worth while or not. Since I didn't convince you and since no one else seemed interested, I'd at this point rather not push this further.
Maybe we can set aside a bit of time to hash this out outside of this list?
Might be a good agenda item for the meeting in Tallinn.
Nick
Cheers, -peter _______________________________________________ FIM4L mailing list FIM4L@lists.daasi.de http://lists.daasi.de/listinfo/fim4l