Overview
The REFEDS Steering Committee has approved the launch of a consultation on the adoption of the Academia Entity Category by REFEDS. The consultation opens on 12th August 2015 and closes on 23rd September 2015. Participants are invited to review the full text and make change proposals in the table below or by email to the REFEDS Coordinators and to express their support / dissension for the category. It is recommended that you also read the prepared notes on the proposal.
Statements of Support / Dissension
As this category has been contentious in the community, we are asking for organisations to express their support or dissension below to allow us to gauge the appropriateness of REFEDS adopting this approach.
| Name | Organisation | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Jim Basney | NCSA / XSEDE (InCommon) | Support: This is needed by CILogon to support SeedMe access for academic but not commercial use. |
Change Log
Change Log for the Consultation on the Academia Entity Category. The Consultation started on 12th August 2015 and closes on 23rd September 2015 (5pm CEST). Please fill in your proposed changes to Academia Category below.
Number | Current Text | Proposed Text / Query | Proposer | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Definition | https://github.com/leifj/academia-category/pull/6 | On Github | Leave Blank |
| 2 | a relying party SHOULD NOT assume that an attribute assertion received from an identity provider with the academia entity category represents a Subject (as defined in [TBD]) with any particular affiliation to the organization on behalf of which the identity provider is operated. | Is this meant to imply "an attribute assertion received *that does not contain an ePA/ePSA* from an identity provider..."? If "yes", is the expectation is that the mechanism for membership/publication in a federation will sufficiently address (via POPs or the like) ensuring that asserted ePA/ePSA are adhering to "expected norms"? Or if "no", is the intent of the category to allow interpretation of the values of ePA/ePSA based on membership, but still disavowing any absolute meanings to the affilliations? | Eric Goodman | Leave Blank |
| 3 | Annotate those member identity providers that represent academic institutions, in order to distinguish them from identity providers that are not able to claim any affiliation with the international research and education community | The definition section sets the bar for degree-granting institutions at ISCED level 6. There are a number of level 5 degree-granting institutions in the US ("community colleges") that have faculty that contribute to national and international research projects, and may be funded by agencies such as the NSF. I'm concerned that the cut-off at level 6 may cause IdPs with participants in international research to be hidden from discovery. | Nick Roy | Leave Blank |
| 4 | 2.5 any organization explicitly denoted as an academic institution by a government entity in the jurisdiction where the claim of being an academic institution is made | In the US, accrediting bodies that determine the validity of academic institutions are non-government organizations. | Nick Roy | Leave Blank |
| 5 | unless it is being operated
| ... unless it is being operated
| Andrew Cormack | Leave Blank |
| 6 | "on behalf of and by contract with at least one organisation represented by a legal entity in good standing in the community of other academic institutions and fulfills at least one of the criteria below:" | This does allow the category to be applied to contracted-out IdPs that provide service to a mix of educational and non-educational organisations (e.g. Microsoft or Google). I suspect it also allows it to be applied to any IdPs that might be operated by universities as a commercial service to other organisations, even if none of those are educational. | Andrew Cormack | Leave Blank |
Other Comments / Observations