...
Problem statement: the current definition of who can be tagged with R&S ("Candidates for the Research and Scholarship (R&S) Category are Service Providers that are operated for the purpose of supporting research and scholarship interaction, collaboration or management, at least in part.") is being interpreted differently by different groups. Requirements that are not specifically in the specification are being applied by federations, creating an uneven use of the specification.
| Areas questioned | Potential issues |
|---|---|
| Is R&S focused on the requirements of the service or the organisational type | Issues with not having a definition of an R&S / R&E organisation and the fact that most organisations have business arms to R&E structure |
| Should "commercial" services be allowed | No way to distinguish the nuance in commercial vs paid for |
| Should services that are contracted be allowed | Contracts are paid for things like collaborative wikis, having a contract does nothing to help the |
| Should "management" be dropped from the definition statement | |
| Is this about translation of real world trust (need to collaborate with other humans) into the spec | |
| Should services that are "operated for" IdPs be allowed (e.g. cloud infrastructure - geant.altassian.com vs wiki.geant.org) | Who is registering the entity, which challenges are there with registering cloud entities, how do you determine the difference between a private / community based approach vs just having an account in a commercial environment |
| Problem of only calling out e-journals in the existing spec | Better phrased as something like "Service Provider MUST be able to prove that it has a legitimate need for the personal data in the attribute bundle." (positive rather than negative entry requirement). |