You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 8 Next »

Proposed public statement (ala previous such in August and October) about what OSIdM4HE has been up to and where we're headed.

General

  • work continues, we are committed to taking concrete next steps to obtaining real committed resources
  • The OSIdM4HE joint effort proposal was presented at Kuali Days and was well attended and received.  Several additional institutions expressed interest in contributing.  To see notes of the meeting including response to the IdM survey conducted in advance of the meeting refer to the following links...  Kuali Days discussion/reaction
  • The OSIdM4HE joint effort was discussed at the Kuali Rice Board meeting at Kuali Days and the board continues to express strong interest.  They endorsed a recommendation to speed up our overall initiative by exploring potential consulting services to create an overall development plan with enough details so that interested parties can have confidence in formally contributing resources.  The OSIdM4HE Strategy and Organization team is working to solicit consulting proposals and will present back to the Rice Board for consideration of seed funding.
  • planned F2F in January
  • new participant orgs
  • UCB/UCSF engagement
  • better name still TBD ...
  • ...

subteams

S&O

  • refined Team Charge
  • proposed new deliverable of Development Investment Plan, possibly using consultant help, see SoW
  • continued work on other top-level documents

Registries

  • focus on matching component, likely development opportunity via UC as example/pilot
  • participation from Rutgers / OpenRegistry, Arizona
  • discussion of API format standards

Provisioning

  • looking at both path from SoRs to Registries and from Registries to downstream systems
  • looking at provisioning as an aspect of general-purpose enterprise data integration, and existing software packages/patterns that do this

Access Management

  • gap analysis performed against requirements from Kuali community and Penn State, both KIM and Grouper matched up well
  • importance of coordination on capabilities and APIs for (at least) the two useful systems
  • access request/approval workflow as potential new functional area
  • No labels