This consultation is open from Monday 20th September 2021 at 17:00 CEST to Monday 18 October at 17:00 CEST
Background
As part of the evolution of the Research & Scholarship Entity Category, the Entity Category Working Group offers a new entity category that focuses on the attributes being released rather than the type of organization requesting the attributes. This stands in place of developing an "R&S 2.0" specification. For more background and a detailed history of this discussions that lead to this draft please see the Working Group wiki pages.
Overview
This consultation will be open from Monday 20th September 2021 at 18:00 CEST to Monday 18 October at 17:00 CEST
Participants are invited to:
- to consider the proposed entity category
- propose appropriate changes / challenges to the proposed text, and
- confirm that they are happy that this should be considered as a REFEDS Entity Category.
We would particularly look for feedback on the proposed attributes associated with a person's name. Given the known challenges in supporting naming conventions that are respectful to differing global standards we would seek to ensure that proposed attributes in this area serve the best possible outcome.
The document for the consultation is available as a pdf attachment. All comments should be made on: consultations@lists.refeds.org or added to the changelog below. Comments posted to other lists will not be included in the consultation review.
Change Log
| comment # | Line/Reference # | Proposed Change or Query | Proposer / Affiliation | Action / Decision (please leave blank) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15 & elsewhere | I'm struggling to understand the use cases where there would be a "need" for personalization. Most of the time I hear about personalization to be a useability/user interface feature - we want to greet this individual by name once they have signed in. Would it be enough to say "I need my users to have a good experience, and personalizing their experience is a key component so I need these attributes"? I could even see an organization showing data that users respond better to being addressed by name. (a demonstration of the need?) I agree that a specific reason needs to be provided with specific information about how the attributes will be used. But, restricting this to "need" seems to me to be very much in the eyes of the beholder and a potential source of conflict. | Laura Paglione / SCG | |
| 2 | 29, 149, and elsewhere | Maybe I am not making the connection. Use of "personalized" seems like it could lead to confusion. The category is not a personalized attribute bundle, but is used to indicate a standard attribute bundle for personalization (line 122). Would suggest use of "personalization" (or something else) in the entity category definition instead of "personalized". | Mark Rank / Cirrus Identity | |
| 3 | 38-41 | These lines require from an SP to present the service definition to the users at the time they register with the service and that the service definition is referred to in metadata, I guess it is meant to part of <mdui:InformationURL>. However, these two requirements are not explicitly listed in the following chapter 'Registration Criteria'. | Thomas Lenggenhager / SWITCH | |
| 4 | 15, 49 | The term "proven" concerns me a little. It seems to imply some kind of test or thorough process, and I'm not sure what that would look like. I'd suggest "justifiable" instead. | Hannah Short / CERN | |
| 5 | ||||
| 6 | ||||
| 7 | ||||
| 8 |