Federated Identity Management for Research Collaboration
I represent the practical physics department.
Collection of research communities. FIM4R paper, published in 2018
It’s called v2, which is the updated version of the paper. What the successes were and the current set of requirements. In the paper there are 9 recommendations and 4 requirements. We identified 7 eco-system constituents : IdP, federations etc.
–> It’s not true with every community and every country/representer.
–> Nobody really cares about the utility or knows their name, besides when you’re paying your bill
–> 5 is the recommendation section. 9 different recommendations.; We matched each of these to a number of groups or important state holders - networks etc.
- It would be nice to track which of these requirements and recommendations are being met. How do we do that in an efficient and effective way?
Presenter: What I suggested is to contact key people and ask them.
- Are there guys tracking it for you, without you knowing about it?
- There’s a lot of activity going on in North America; there are a lot of things going on and a lot of people taking it on.
- What is the most important thing to be done now?
- Feedback. Do you agree that we addressed your problem? Try to measure what’s the impact and try to characterize it; 3-4 places, where they already have a catalog about how people react. Acting as the customer and they as the service provider, they wold be able to use that ,it would be great for them to say attaboy
- Basically we need a status report on where we are on these objectives. Who can write a paragraph about what happened in that area throughout the community?
- Research, grouping, conversations are needed in order for that to be done
- Responsive to some recommendations
- REFEDS variation survey that happens every year. It would be useful to do something here, so we can see and track what happens here, we can try to have a regular tool here that will be used to evaluate. It may be possible to have REFEDS ask specific questions about those that are collected automatically
- We can set up a red cap server collaboration.
- We can definitely design a questionnaire and send it out.
- Let’s leverage pulling data from the community based on a questionnaire, using the annual survey. My idea was let’s divvy up all of the things amongst the community and someone will write what progress there is in this area, and turn it into a status report.
- It’s not just the research communities. We always said we would produce a paper. A year from now we might write a very short paper that states the most important things. If we get people as authors from REFEDS, EduGain, we might ask them to write a paragraph or two in the paper.
- State of the union.
Q: We need to get this in before October?
A: We need to have the idea of what it will be.
Q: Did we ever get how to get it into Google Scholar?
A: There was some issue with that
A: Google scholar is unusual because they have relationships with the publishers, so if it’s not published in a journal, it’s very difficult to get it.
Presenter: We cannot write a full paper until next year, but something short.
Comment: Just a few paragraphs
- Just put that aside. We can do it on a one-time basis, people might be more willing to help. Which is a lot different than something on a reoccurring basis.
- One of the benefits is that it keeps us together as a body, keeps us thinking about the problems. As a result we will be tracking it.
- By reflecting on it, it increases the social impact it has by calling back attention at the original paper. As a mechanism to affect change, it will be very useful to do some reflection on the original.
- We need to kind of assess those responses.
- It could be written in a call-to-action way “We come a long way but there’s more to be done”
- The overall message depends on the assessment.
- By making them an author, it is more likely for them to contribute.
- we will take a measurement in October or December. If we want to repeat this there is gong to be a point in time after which all developments should be ignored. How often are we going to do this?
A: every 2 years at most
- Another alternative is to scale it back in have it in a more public place than a web page.
- I wonder if we might think about the 2 stages of effort. We can have a paper about it, or a matrix or a graph, whatever represents it in the best way.
- It will be good to track over time does everybody still agree.
- We need to think what would the nature of our assessment be. We would have to get the input of that process from our sources. If we can clarify to them what that is, we might be able to make the flow.
- Try to include all of the different groups we are trying to reach.
- This first one doesn’t have to be complete.
- It wouldn’t be too soon to think how we would assess.
- I was thinking off-line, this editorial has to start meeting and agreeing what it is we’re trying to collect and then do that over the year before the meeting in the fall. During the fall we can start to look at the results and think about assessment and when we come back here we can discuss the conclusions. We would be submitting in the fall and in January they are checking it but you still have 6 months to convince them. It doesn’t have to be TNC but it’s always nice to have something driving you.
- If we start now, certifying what we’re doing by the end.
Q: What about super computing?
A: It’s not the right people. It’s very US based, not that popular in Europe.
Q: Is it worth doing this year?
A: We can at least try.
- If we publish a short paper in 2020, it will give us 2 years.
- We need to get in by the end of the summer
- It takes 3-4 month before it’s completed. It’s a very slow thing to do, that one.
- It’s a question of quickly compiling questions that would be in the survey or maybe some of them are already captured
- Some internal tracking. We can know what kind of project etc.
- I don’t want to burden the project with too much project management.
- When we’re talking about assessment it’s good to have actual data that we’ll be assessing
- We could mention on Monday that during TNC this year there is going to be a 1 day workshop on Identity Management. What was the content of that? Will there be room for a 20-minute presentation?
Q: This year in June?
A: Yeah, but just to give and introduction, just to say that this is happening. I won’t be giving any results
- I am not sure who is organizing it.
Q: Do we wan tot do it (the presentation)?
- I don’t know about the schedule.
- You can muscle it into the REFEDS meeting. There will be a REFEDS meeting.
- We should ask for a slot at the REFEDS meeting.
- You just need to send a request for a proposal.
- It sounds like we need to start working pretty soon.
- We should come up with the next steps.
Q: Are we going use this as the structure for the report, these categories?
A: These are kind of the actors. We could break it up. We have those categories of recommendation. And then there’s the requirements and a graph would be too complicated for this purpose.
- If we have something more concrete than feedback.
- Maybe this structure will work because we can ask them directly how are they progressing on those aspects.
- We should ask what they are doing
- Step one is to request a slot at REFEDS at TNC and we need to define the questions that we are going to ask people. Step 3 is to define a meeting for later this year.
- We need to be thoughtful of what we ask them
- We need to have the assessment methodologies ready.
- There should be some self-grading here.
- It has the benefit of just thinking about it, reminding them we’re here.
- We should just do a quantitative assessment. We may need to do some story based narrative of yes, we considered this, we thought of how to put that into a road map.
- There have to be qualitative.
- I’ve heard some fantastic stories on Monday about stuff that are going on in the US but not at all in the Europe
- We need an outline of what should be written
- Just some kind of structure that can be written by the different community members