Subject Re: affiliate student?
From "David L. Wasley" <dlwasley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Mon, 5 Jul 2010 09:14:33 -0700

I would suggest that your case is exactly what eduperson entitlement was meant for. It's similar to the "library walk-in" case in the US - we don't even have them in our IdMS but they are "entitled to access licensed content" merely because they are physically present in the library (the computers in the library have personalities :-)).

In other words, the campus is stuck with doing the (complex?) attribute algebra and merely provides the result (Yes or DNC) to the relying party.

[The pushback from the RP might be "we don't trust you"; the response might be "then why trust me to give you valid input?" Etc. ]

At 10:41 AM +0100 on 7/5/10, Nicole Harris wrote:

In an ideal world ;-) Unfortunately I'm dealing with publishers who put stupid clauses in their licenses and then refuse to accept anything but the most basic attributes to manage them. Sigh.

Scott Cantor wrote:

Is it not possible for a RP to ignore qualifiers unless they know
what they mean and actually care?  In other words (pardon my awkward
syntax ;-))

The awkward syntax, which is really just pseudo-XML, is the problem. People
seem to insist on using simple strings for everything, and that doesn't
really allow for more than one "adjective" or qualifier. Scope is really
just an example of one of those qualifiers, and we had to stop insisting on
separating it from the value to get people to implement it properly.

SIA if this is a silly idea.

I think it's a fine idea, but I seem to be in a minority of programmers.

-- Scott