Subject RE: use of eduPersonScopedAffiliation
From "Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@xxxxxxx>
Date Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:01:58 -0400

Peter Schober wrote on 2009-10-21:
> * Thomas Lenggenhager <lenggenhager@xxxxxxxxx> [2009-10-21 12:31]:
>> When I first heard it, I thought you encode courses into the left hand
>> side as well. But you seem to respect the controlled vocabulary as
>> required.
>  Only in the first describes case ("Affiliations to Organisations"). In
> the other cases course-specific "roles" are made up (lecturer,
> teachingassistant, etc.), so this is well beyond the fixed values of
> eduPersonAffiliation.

There's also the eduCourseMember attribute, which attempts to derive a
controlled vocabulary from the work done in IMS on standardizing roles
related to instruction.

>> Do you really treat courses as individual security domains?
>> This I see as a very 'stretched' interpretation of the standard.

Strictly speaking, things got a bit weird with eduCourseMember, because the
right-hand side there is typically a course URI. Formally, that was still
viewed as a scoped attribute, and formally, there's no rule about what a
scope attached to a scoped affiliation could be, but there's very little
practice around using scopes with affiliations other than the scopes one
would use on EPPN.

> Definitively. Just use Entitlements instead.

I happen to generally share that view, but a lot of people are routinely
uncomfortable equating roles or groups with entitlements. Personally, I am
not so troubled.

-- Scott