Subject Re: ePSA comparison (was RE: ePTID comparison)
From Olivier Salaün <olivier.salaun@xxxxxx>
Date Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:11:20 +0200


Andrew Cormack a écrit :
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" :-(
Thanks for pointing this misinterpretation ; I will forward yout email to our SupAnn working group and we might decide to fix that in the next release of the SupAnn document.

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!)
I'm not aware of such work being carried in France with all publishers. Thanks for sharing this information with us ; it's really interesting. I'm wondering if British institutions are assigning the "ePA=member" to these specific users in their LDAP directory OR do they still differentiate them internally and add the "ePA=member" value at their IdP level whenever dealing with appropriate publishers?

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?
It seems that internally, e-learning platforms (for instance) have use cases where the eduPersonAffiliation is not enough ; they ask for very detailed if not nominative profiles.