Subject RE: Work Items discussed during the REFEDs meeting
From "Andrew Cormack" <Andrew.Cormack@xxxxxx>
Date Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:07:53 +0100

Sorry if I'm suffering post-conference jet-lag, but what's DOI (item c)?
Since I'm mentioned in the item, I'm feeling a bit silly not knowing...

Also, I'm not sure I'd concentrate quite so much on privacy notices in
the write-up of item (d). It seems to me there are a lot more user
interface issues than the particular wording of privacy notices,
especially as even Data Protection Regulators don't seem able to agree.
I've just been reading a paper on network monitoring to detect copyright
infringement: two of seven countries reckon that doesn't involve
processing personal data at all, while several of the others think it's
not just personal data, but crime-related data, so only the police can
do it. So much for "harmonisation"! Whether the new draft directive, due
at the end of this year, will provide any clarity I don't know.

And I'd be grateful for one further clarification on the "listing
service". Is it IdPs who fetch this metadata direct from the service, or
are federations supposed to add it to their metadata files and
distribute it to all their IdP members? Current comments seem to hint at


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: Licia Florio [mailto:florio@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 07 June 2010 13:22
> To: REFeds
> Subject: [refeds] Work Items discussed during the REFEDs meeting
> Hi all,
> The proper minutes of the meeting will be circulated at a later stage,
> but in the meanwhile I'm circulating the list of topics that were
> deemed
> relevant during the meeting.
> There is also a meta-topic (not listed but of course relevant), that
> to identify topics that we think are mature enough to be
> discussed/moved
> to other communities.
> Could you please provide your comments to the proposed list of topics
> by
> Friday at latest?
> cheers,
> Licia
> a. Raising REFEDs profile
> --------------------------
> REFEDs flywheel, website, etc
> b. Established points of contacts with dependable communications for
> all
> major R&E federations and VOs
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The main challenge will be to keep this list up-to-date (the current
> REFEFs wiki has got already an extensive list, but mechanisms should
> defined to ensure that the data on wiki are kept up-to-date).
> This is particular relevant for moving VOs related efforts forward.
> These include discussions with VO leadership, specific plans for
> rollouts and cutovers, and contacts with those federations whose
> countries house major research groups.
> c. Working with publishers
> -----------------------------
> Andrew reported on the initial calls between a some of REFEDs
> participants and publishers. Andrew noted that the publishers when
> approached were very positive about the REFEDs. They felt that REFEDs
> is
> the only forum where their needs can be discussed in an international
> context.
> As engaging with the publishers can result in discussing a variety of
> issues, Andrew proposed that he would, in consultation with the
> publishers, prepare a list of topics that would then be mapped to
> roadmap. Some of the issues identified cover licences, usability, and
> so
> on.
> (including exploring the usage of DOI and EZproxies)
> d. User Interface
> ----------------------------
> This includes rough consensus on common language for use in privacy
> managers, work on harmonising user interfaces, consensus on common
> language for use in privacy managers.
> e. Discovery
> -------------
> Decide on a specific plan for eduId (note that eduID is just a
> temporary
> name, no agreement on the name has been reached) and foster the
> deployment. The discovery problem is being worked on in many different
> arenas within the Internet identity community, including ULX, OpenId,
> Infocard, etc.
> The liaison with the publishers could be beneficial for this.
> g. Attributes
> ---------------
> Semantic of eduPerson: based on the discussion followed after Mikael's
> talk use-cases need to be collected and discussed.
> e. Looking at ways to exchange verified metadata
> -------------------------------------------------
> Create a WG to define a short-term approach to providing metadata for
> shared community resources (e.g. the Refeds wiki, the spaces wiki, the
> Czech medical atlas, etc)
> eduGAIN is not the answer to everything, other solutions should be
> looked at. Several options are already available; the output of this
> work item should be the reach consensus on which solution(s) to use.
> f. LoA
> --------
> - waiting for the results coming from JISC study on deployability of
> both InCommon Silver and Kantara;
> - next steps for federations to start deploying higher LoA