Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:00:49 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1312430462.37.1711710049042@wiki-prod.refeds.org>
Subject: Exported From Confluence
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_Part_36_341777699.1711710049039"
------=_Part_36_341777699.1711710049039
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
eduPersonAffiliation Subcommittee Call - 30 June 2020
eduPersonAffiliation Subcommittee Call - 30 June 2020
Attendees:
Regrets:=
Notes
- It should be possible to construct an entitlement to enforce a policy i=
f the convention is supported on both sides. Is this convention something t=
hat should be standardized? Depends on the scale you want to work, and it m=
ight not be feasible to generalize on.
- A concern that the descriptions are too specific to the NIH. Need to re=
ach out to other research grant authorities to see how the definitions are =
similar. Alternatively, if the naming convention is granting authority+valu=
e (e.g., NIH.gov_$value) then that scopes the value to the NIH=E2=80=99s de=
finition. If you go with the eduPerson entitlement naming scheme, this idea=
is built in to the URN or even the URI.
- The problem with entitlement is that it hasn=E2=80=99t scaled. While th=
ere is value when you can get it to work to scope things down as specific a=
s needed, the real value of the entitlement-based approach is when you have=
enough generalities that you=E2=80=99ll get wider support for the value.=
li>
- Go with the entitlement path to get some research community more heavil=
y engaged, and build adoption off that.
- Pre-registrant - will likely have a very local definition to the point =
of not being usable
- Researcher - if you use IPEDs (in the US) then this might be something =
more usable
- An affiliation is just the relationship. Some of the relationships we=
=E2=80=99re looking at depend on the regional context (e.g., pre-higher ed =
doesn=E2=80=99t make sense outside of a US context). Affiliation is not par=
t of the identity lifecycle process.
- Some affiliations should not be released during a fed authN workflow. E=
.g., former-student introduces FERPA concerns in the US (though they may st=
ill have access to online resources as a result of being a former-student)<=
/li>
- Filtered attribute release is critical to all of this.
- It does not help to clarify to people what=E2=80=99s wrong; you have to=
tell them what to do instead. =E2=80=9CHere=E2=80=99s the entitlement use =
case you should use instead of using affiliation."
- Consultant - perhaps Contractor would be better? Most places have diffe=
rentiation between employees and contractors. This is almost a vendor, exce=
pt there may be access required to some systems. Another option is to use t=
he word =E2=80=9CTemporary=E2=80=9D. These may also be considered Sponsored=
accounts, which is a general enough term that it may apply across the boar=
d.
- Sponsored: An identity that is being managed because a perceived busine=
ss need for someone not otherwise affiliated.
- Regarding the various student-related value (post-graduate vs graduate =
vs under-graduate) is splitting the students into various sub-categories a =
useful exercise? What problem are we trying to solve.
- Maybe these local needs should be handled via groups instead of a schem=
a?
- Student-employee =3D this varies between institutions as well. In some =
definitions, this is a financial-aid defined role. In other organizations, =
this isn=E2=80=99t actually tied to financial aid. In The Ohio State exampl=
e, employee trumps student-ness.
The two affiliations that have some measure of consensus are:
Group will consider whether there=E2=80=99s a better word than =E2=80=9Cspo=
nsored=E2=80=9D and discuss on the next call.
Next call: 14 July 2020
------=_Part_36_341777699.1711710049039--