Subject Re: ePSA comparison (was RE: ePTID comparison)
From Keith Hazelton <hazelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:55:14 -0500

One comment below
On Sep 2, 2009, at 08:46, Andrew Cormack wrote:

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?

This is pretty much my sense of this issue based on the last several years' experience. --Keith

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
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
not someone who is "alum" is also "member"; for RENATER (who
have the clearest definition - thanks), please could you confim
"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
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
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
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