Subject Re: ePSA comparison (was RE: ePTID comparison)
From "Andrew Cormack" <Andrew.Cormack@xxxxxx>
Date Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:46:48 +0100

Thanks for the information (simple French is fine for me). 

Unfortunately, if I've understood your schema and the EduPerson intention correctly, I think your latest interpretation is actually further away from theirs than the original was. I'm afraid you may have made the same mistake as us in swapping the intended functions of "employee" and "staff". Everyone else seems to treat "staff" as the 'opposite' of "faculty", with both falling roughly within "employee". We, and maybe you, now, have "employee" as the opposite of "faculty" :-(

Interesting point that you are considering having "faculty" who are not "members". Our content licensing people have been discussing those non-employed teachers with content providers and trying to have them included within the standard licence terms, so that the legal specification of those licensed to see the content would translate simply to "ePSA=member". For what other categories they identified, and how far they've got with publishers, see
(Please *don't* copy their colour scheme, which is hostile to red/green colourblind people!)

My impression from talking with them is that content providers actually want very simple rules and, in many cases, don't even want to distinguish whether someone is a student or a teacher. If they do need to do that, then it seems to be on a per-individual basis (defined either by ePTID/ePPN or ePE), hence my suggestion earlier in the discussion that we may already have a more complicated system than is needed. After reading the many helpful examples that have been provided I'm actually coming to think that what we have may be a system that is more complicated than external service providers need, but less complicated than we need internally?

Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser
JANET(UK), Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, OX11 0SG, UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
Fax: +44 (0) 1235 822399

JANET, the UK's education and research network

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Salaün [mailto:olivier.salaun@xxxxxx]
> Sent: 31 August 2009 15:13
> To: refeds@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Core-UKFederation; Claveleira - Comite Reseaux des Universites
> Subject: Re: [refeds] ePTID comparison
> Below is some (late) feedback for the French HiEd schema (SupAnn):
> Andrew Cormack a écrit :
> > [...]
> >
> > In fact there are only four federations for which I could work out
> the
> > complete hierarchy, and those have four different variations!
> >
> > Please could RENATER and SWITCH confirm that I have understood their
> > definitions correctly? In particular for SWITCH I'm not clear whether
> or
> > not someone who is "alum" is also "member"; for RENATER (who
> otherwise
> > have the clearest definition - thanks), please could you confim
> whether
> > "retired" and "emeritus" get "member" as well?
> >
> We have being working hard in the current version of our SupAnn
> directory schema
> <>
> (sorry for not providing the English versin of it) to provide a better
> definition of eduPersonAffiliation values, how different values
> articulate and even define new values. The attached PDF shows a table
> that provides an overview of values implications.
> We have make the "staff" value obsolete because the first version of
> our
> schema had misinterpreted its definition in eduPerson.
> We have interpreted "employee" as being non teaching/researcher staff.
> New attribute values : library-walk-in, researcher, retired, emeritus.
> We've don a mix of extensional and intensional definitions, as
> presented
> by Peter. For each attribute value, we have defined whether it implies
> "member" or not. "Member" is defined as someone who is registered in
> either the HR or student databases. However recent discussions among
> the
> SupAnn working group have revealed the limitations of the extensional
> definition of "member": it is not appropriate for so-called "invited
> teachers" who are payed by another university but have teaching duties
> within the university. therefore they need to have the "faculty" value
> set but should not be considered as "member". Next version of SupAnn
> will no more try to define such implication rules, to remain flexible
> enough.
> Thanks.