1 / 18

An Update on Digital Library Access Methods

An Update on Digital Library Access Methods. David Millman Columbia University June 2002. Survey: Some Access Mgmt Methods. One Collection, multiple organizations Fragmented collections More private Federated collections Removing central administration. Single Collection. simple

serina-holder
Download Presentation

An Update on Digital Library Access Methods

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An Update on Digital Library Access Methods David Millman Columbia University June 2002

  2. Survey: Some Access Mgmt Methods • One Collection, multiple organizations • Fragmented collections • More private • Federated collections • Removing central administration

  3. Single Collection • simple • low security • low privacy • poor scaling Org Org Org admin Collection

  4. One Collection, multiple organizations • Fragmented collections • More private • Federated collections • Removing central administration

  5. Fragmented Collections • central admin • optional distributed admin • flexible service packages / licensing • scaling? Org Org Org { adm { { adm C C C C C

  6. One Collection, multiple organizations • Fragmented collections • More private • Federated collections • Removing central administration

  7. Organizational Authentication • locally authenticated • credentials do not leave org admin • higher security & privacy • e.g., WebISO (I2), pubcookie (UWash), CAS (Yale), WIND (Columbia) Org adm AuthN AuthZ ? C

  8. One Collection, multiple organizations • Fragmented collections • More private • Federated collections • Removing central administration

  9. Federated Collections(e.g., NSDL?) • independent collections • central admin • + mandatory distributed admin • moderate scaling • higher security • moderate privacy (central portal interface & profile services) Org Org Org adm adm adm adm portal profiles C C C C

  10. One Collection, multiple organizations • Fragmented collections • More private • Federated collections • Removing central administration

  11. Federated w/o Central Architecture(e.g., NSDL) • no central technology (or only a bit) • central policy • good scaling • good privacy & security Org Org Org adm adm adm (policy) portal profiles C C C C

  12. Federated w/o Central Architecture(e.g., NSDL) • no central technology (or only a bit) • central policy • good scaling • good privacy & security Org Org Org adm adm adm (policy) Shibboleth portal profiles C C C C

  13. NSDL Architecture (abbreviated) • ~ 80 collections (most unrestricted) • ~ 20 services • core technical infrastructure • metadata repository • search • access management • portal

  14. Shibboleth Dependencies • SAML (oasis-open.org) • architecture (middleware.internet2.edu) • policy specification (perhaps per community of use)

  15. Shibboleth Requirements • organization authentication infrastructure • community authorization infrastructure • target service software add-on • “where-are-you-from?” service • community policy framework

  16. NSDL Access Mgmt Policy Goals • specify • communities of use (for subscribers) • conditions of use (for collections/publishers) • subscribers: requirements for participation, e.g., character of local authentication (enforcement roles and methods), conformance to definitions of community membership • publishers: practices re identity aggregation, discovery, disclosure • clarify technology vs legal/administrative policy

  17. Access Architecture Next Steps • relationship to interfaces • Learning Management Systems • portals generally • relationship to collections • as “repositories” (citation mgmt, versioning, archival concerns, license repurpose)

  18. end

More Related