Refeds


Subject Re: SV: InCommon comments on proposed REFEDS R&S definition
From "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2@xxxxxxx>
Date Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:23:35 +0000

On 10/28/14, 12:41 PM, "Pål Axelsson" <Pal.Axelsson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>I realy wondering what this is all about. Please get us a closure here.
>We need the R&S as it is. We can later discuss what more we need. But
>please don't mark words that no one outside the natural english speakers
>understand!

I think this should be viewed as a separate conversation about the
potential use cases for additional IdP R&S category "support" tags. Right
now, there's one defined. If in the future there are discussions that
terminate and conclude that additional ones are useful, so be it.

In other words, this has no effect on the existing category or the
existing IdP-side tag value.

I would disagree that it's a bad thing to have the ability to define more
than one tag. That was part of the entity category concept from the
beginning when we extended it from SP tags to IdP tags. (Not implying that
you're saying that's a problem, but in case there's some confusion over
that.)

-- Scott