[Fim4l] Statistics issue use-case

Peter Gietz peter.gietz at daasi.de
Fri Apr 12 16:45:52 CEST 2019

Hi Peter,

Am 09.04.19 um 17:04 schrieb Peter Schober:
> * 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.

Yes agreed that was why common-lib-terms was specified in the first 
place and quite some time ago.

>   (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.

did we? I still think that affiliation could be suited at least to 
distinguish in contracts faculty from staff and student from the rest. 
Whenever the scope is more finegrained like in the may be misleading 
example in the eduPerson spec, this could also be used for contracts, 
but I agree that not every division of a university has its own domain name.

>   So /that/ specific use-case
> would still need agreement and standardisation, AFAICT.)

Yes and that could be done here. A solution would be the AARC 
specification "AARC-G002 Expressing group membership and role 
information", see 
Yes this (mis-)uses ePEntitlement not for entitlements but for group 

Should FIM4L support this solution and give some recommendations and 
examples how to do it with this use case.

> 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.

ACK, but let us make a distinction between

1.) the value "common-lib-terms", which to me seems like a compromise 
found long ago, that is especially good for the publishers, since the 
library needs to buy a license for the whole constituency also if only a 
small group will actually need the resource.


2.) the above mentioned URN syntax for defining subgroups.

> 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.)

Provided repective license contract content.

>> 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.

AS R&S speaks about the library use case, as you quote, there is an 
overlap IMHO...


Peter G.

> -peter
> [1] https://refeds.org/category/research-and-scholarship
> _______________________________________________
> FIM4L mailing list
> FIM4L at lists.daasi.de
> http://lists.daasi.de/listinfo/fim4l


Peter Gietz, CEO

DAASI International GmbH
Europaplatz 3
D-72072 Tübingen

phone: +49 7071 407109-0
fax:   +49 7071 407109-9
email: peter.gietz at daasi.de
web:   www.daasi.de

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Tübingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 382175
Geschäftsleitung: Peter Gietz

More information about the FIM4L mailing list