[Fim4l] Statistics issue use-case

Nick Roy nroy at internet2.edu
Tue Apr 9 23:02:29 CEST 2019

On 9 Apr 2019, at 9:04, Peter Schober wrote:

> * Jiri Pavlik <jiri.pavlik at 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 at 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,


> -peter
> [1] https://refeds.org/category/research-and-scholarship
> _______________________________________________
> FIM4L mailing list
> FIM4L at lists.daasi.de
> http://lists.daasi.de/listinfo/fim4l
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 512 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.daasi.de/pipermail/fim4l/attachments/20190409/9c3eb6fd/attachment.sig>

More information about the FIM4L mailing list