Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:42:00 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <2061635515.6475.1711633320701@ip-10-10-7-29.ec2.internal>
Subject: Exported From Confluence
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_Part_6474_918475494.1711633320699"
------=_Part_6474_918475494.1711633320699
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Project Goals
There was a general discussion about setting goals and benchmarks for fu=
ture work and setting out a detailed path for the working group.
Specifically, the working group agreed there needs to be a discussion ab=
out deliverables, a plan for developing those deliverables, and a timeline =
for completion. There are some natural benchmarks, driven by planned presen=
tations, including EDUCAUSE and the Internet2 Member Meeting in October 200=
8, and the NASIG and ALA meetings in June 2009.
There seems to be consensus on what procedures are usable and what the w=
orking group would want to implement. Some of the issues discussed:
Testing / I=
ssue Identification
- Outlining remaining questions related to proposed solutions and conduct=
ing tests to determine answers.=20
- Expanding limited pilot projects to a broader test of technology
- with participants enabling more service providers.=20
- Chicago currently testing Scopus
- Washington/Chicago/Penn currently testing RefWorks
- Washington currently testing Worldcat
- Making contacts with peers in Europe to share experiences and use cases=
.
- Additional Case Studies / possible participants?=20
- CIC as Incommon Case Study (shared digital repository with federated ac=
cess) - Bob
- NJ Edge
- Ohiolink
- There are a number of email lists which may help identify likely candid=
ates. It may be useful for members of this working group to monitor those e=
mail lists, gathering information about general trends and identifying peop=
le with whom we might collaborate.=20
SP Standards
- Identifying the common licensed library vendors (probably 15-18) that r=
epresent 80-90 percent of the traffic for most libraries. Determining wheth=
er those vendors are Shib-enabled (many probably are through the UK federat=
ion), working with those vendors to join InCommon, and promoting federating=
among these vendors and libraries.
- Advocating to service providers on standards needed to federate to make=
it easy for users.
- Advocating to service providers about the basic technology of federatin=
g and providing use cases.
- Developing best practices for content providers.=20
- Adam Chandler reported that NISO (National Information Standards Organi=
zation) has been exploring something similar. He and Oliver Pesch of NISO a=
re drafting a work item for NISO in this area.
- SP Functional=
ity Requests
Shibbole=
th Standards and requests
- Advocating to Shibboleth on standards needed to make it easy for users.=
=20
Documentation
- Developing information (such as white papers, use cases or other docume=
nts) on the hybrid Shibboleth/EZProxy solution to library access.
- Sharing case studies, documenting what works and what doesn't.
- Mapping the presentations (which are on the wiki) into more generic rep=
orts, suggestions and recommendations.
- Determining whether to open this group to a wider audience and, if so, =
when and how.=20
- Establishing wider affiliation (Educause, NISO, CNI)
- Public Web Page=20
------=_Part_6474_918475494.1711633320699--