As REFEDS and other communities have developed entity categories and other specifications, the issue of using logos has been discussed and in some cases implemented. There's been no specific strategy behind this - the development has tended to be reactive to the scenarios in hand (with the exception of branding for Sirtfi). As we develop more of these approaches, it is a good time to take stock and think about the direction we want to take for branding and trust marks and to have a clear approach as to how we wish to have the logos used and where. There are benefits and drawbacks to approaches: having logos can help us clearly and cleanly promote our work and give entities a way of flagging compliance, but too many could lead to a NASCAR level of noise and water down the overall impact. It is also worth considering whether we want to brand each area individually at a logo level, or whether a more general REFEDS baseline / accreditation / maturity mark might be a better goal.
| Name | Logo | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Research and Scholarship (R&S) | No formal logo | InCommon developed something for stickers at their events and are happy for us to reuse. |
| Code of Conduct (CoCo) | No logo | No logo. Specification is formally owned by GÉANT (not REFEDS) but our community is the primary user. |
| Sirtfi | logo exists | Logo developed by AARC. Need to make sure we have access to appropriate artwork and .eps files. |
| MFA / SFA / Assurance | request for logo | Need to determine if we are creating a logo at each level or just for assurance. |
| Pros / Cons | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Develop a logo for each specification | |
| 2 | Develop a logo for each specification wants it reaches certain leverage | |
| 3 | Develop a more general REFEDS mark |