[Fim4l] Statistics issue use-case

[Peter Schober]

* Peter Gietz <peter.gietz at 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?

Cheers,
-peter