Shibboleth Developers

["Jennifer Vine" <>]

Peter (et al.) - 

Sorry, this message got lost behind a flurry of administrivia I just
cleared out of my email folders.

>One of the key pieces for this for library (or, eventually, end user) 
>to specify the unique-yet-not-identifiable attribute back to the 
>resource provider for the purpose of offering a customized environment 
>in an anonymous setting.  I expect it may be one of the 
>attributes that 
>can be added to the policy (the pull-down list on 
><http://www.stanford.edu/~jvine/shibboleth/mockups/7/custom.htm
>l>), but 
>I wanted to be sure it was accounted for, maybe even in a explicit way 
>before sending the mockup out to the focus group.

(We didn't discuss that page in the focus group calls - it's what would
be used to create a from-scratch no-template ARP, and it may completely
change given other clarifications to the UI.)

I think what you're asking about here is the "targeted ID", which also
didn't come up in the calls. In the context of accepting a template
as-is and applying it to a community - would the "targeted ID" simply be
something that was agreed upon in the contract, and expressed by an
attribute or combination of attributes in the template? 

>One of the hot new topics in 
>library automation now is the creation of "Electronic Resource 
>Management" tools. 
[...]
>
>The reason for bringing all of this up, though, is there will 
>likely be 
>a need for an automated way to move information from an Electronic 
>Resource Management tool in the libraries to the ARP.  

Yeesh, I thought this was a hot new topic when I moved out of library
automation a decade ago... :-)  But it also came up from someone else -
Beth? - in yesterday's call, and I don't recall or didn't capture in my
notes what we decided, if anything. It looks to me like the UI
implications of data exchange with an ERM are not huge - common
terminology where appropriate, things of that nature.

JV


Jennifer Vine
ITSS : Services Engineering : UI designer

 | 831-649-8178