Refeds


Subject RE: Work Items discussed during the REFEDs meeting
From "Mark Williams (JISC)" <m.williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:35:41 +0100

Just to add to Nicole’s point. “test systems against accounts from campus authentication systems” is certainly a  major request from a very significant number of publishers and an early warning system of some sort would do a lot to enable us to show the community that shib issues are actively addressed when they are occuring. It would also be the first element in a process of making the publishers get information out early about problems when they occur- rather than what can happen at the moment,  where they communicate on a global basis when they see complaints reach a tipping point.

 

Mark

 

 

 

From: Nicole Harris [mailto:n.harris@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 July 2010 15:24
To: Andrew Cormack
Cc: Steven_Carmody@xxxxxxxxx; REFeds
Subject: Re: [refeds] Work Items discussed during the REFEDs meeting

 

Thanks for pulling this together Andrew. 

There is a huge amount of interest in the UK in improving testing processes, especially as many of the big publishers seem to have had outages recently.  I'm really interested in taking this forward so would be happy to 'lead' on that area.  I think it is probably one space that doesn't neatly map across to the revised REFEDs workplan but we can take a look at fitting it in as a workpackage. 

Discovery is obviously well developed, the publisher's group will be a good conduit in terms of pushing the shib roadmap developments out. 

The other two would fit well under the general heading of 'harmonisation'. 

Andrew Cormack wrote:

Steve
Apologies for the long delay, but it's been a crazy few weeks for conferences and other meetings. At the REFEDs meeting in Vilnius I agreed to write up the publisher discussions in a form that could be considered for inclusion in the REFEDs work plan, so the main purpose of this mail is to discharge that item. Combining your e-mails and the stuff already on the wiki, I've come up with the following five.
 
1. Discovery
Publishers' primary concern in the Discovery space is developing recommendations on dealing with what they see as the exploding number of Higher Ed/Research Shibboleth Federations (currently more than 30). The NISO Web SSO WG's recommendations to publishers will likely run parallel to the Shibboleth "Discovery Service 2.0 Roadmap" (https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/SHIB2/DSRoadmap) including recommending that Service Providers use a DS that is integrated into the SP site rather than relying on Federation supplied DS services.The WG's Final Report will be distributed to Publishers this summer.
 
2. Standardising/Simplifying Processes and Workflows
Publishers are very interested in simplifying some of the current processes:
*       the process of making a Publisher accessible from the Nth Federation;
*       the process of on-boarding a campus to a Publisher and using SAML-based access;
*       defining standard approaches for reaching a deep link AND simultaneously identifying the user or IDP;
*       etc. 
Reaching agreement on these questions will require consensus among the publishers and the large group of Federations.
 
3. Personal Data Laws
There seem to be three main concerns
*       Understanding different definitions of personal data
*       Understanding when personal data can be disclosed/used ("consent" vs "necessity")
*       Understanding when personal data can be transferred into and out of the European Economic Area
 
4. Standards for Digital Certificates
There seem to be some differences between federations on whether self-signed certificates are acceptable, or whether certificates need to be issued or certified by particular bodies
 
5. Standards for providing campus test accounts
It would be useful to have guidance on when and how publishers can test systems against accounts from campus authentication systems. We have briefly discussed this at a REFEDs meeting and concluded that the most realistic (and safest) test would be to seek volunteer library services to work with interested publishers. 
 
 
Most of them seem to relate to existing REFEDs work items on the list that Licia has already circulated (most obviously number 3 is the same as my existing work item!) so I'd suggest that where possible we distribute them among the existing work items rather than creating a separate "work with publishers" item that would risk duplicate parts of others. But it's up to the group whether they want to do it that way, and indeed if they decide there are some of these that they don't want to include.
 
The group may also have views on the best way to incorporate publisher representatives. However the term "work item" may suggest that REFEDs has a more formal (sub-)structure than is actually the case! In effect REFEDs is a mailing list and biannual face-to-face meeting. In between the meetings members get on with working on the items they are particularly interested in, using whatever communication methods are most appropriate. Each work item has a leader who is supposed to ensure that there is a report on progress at each meeting. So at the moment, people get involved by joining a meeting or the mailing list and then talking to the informal groups working on chosen items. So it seems to me that the natural way for publishers to join in is to have the coordinating people join the REFEDs list and then either they, or others they recommend, get involved in the relevant informal groups.
 
Comments and suggestions?
Andrew
 
--
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: Steven_Carmody@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Steven_Carmody@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 08 June 2010 23:50
To: REFeds
Subject: Re: [refeds] Work Items discussed during the REFEDs meeting
 
At 2:21 PM +0200 6/7/10, Licia Florio wrote:
    
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.
      
The Publishers were very interested in simplifying some of the
current processes -- the process of making a Publisher accessible
from the Nth Federation, the process of on-boarding a campus to a
Publisher and using SAML-based access, defining standard approaches
for reaching a deep link AND simultaneously identifying the user or
IDP, etc. Reaching agreement on these questions will require
consensus among the publishers and the large group of Federations;
REFEDS seems like a logical place to host that conversation.
 
    
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
      
REFEDs
    
roadmap. Some of the issues identified cover licences, usability, and
      
so
    
on.
 
      
I think its advisable to use a single channel/group to communicate
with the Publishers, rather than asking them to join multiple REFEDS
Working Groups/Activities. I think the communication with the
Publishers and the relationship with the Publishers needs to be
coordinated in order to achieve a successful outcome. Although some
of the work might be done in multiple REFEDS subgroups, I think we
need a single primary contact point for the Publishers.