[OpenID] Rule of thumb

[Peter Williams]

"using their
institutionally-provided OpenID."

This is one of those things I don't get (and I hear this kind of
phrasing a lot). Ok I'm dumb in OpenID; but trying really hard.. So,
bear with me.

I keep reading over and over again that only end-users (i.e. the
students) select their OP; and can migrate it to various providers, at
their whim. Or, register it with several providers -- in OpenID2.

Isn't the concept of OpenID (user-centric id) contradictory with the
notion that one has an "institutionally-provided OpenID"?

Of course a university could be one of those OpenID Providers. And of
course, the student could use the XRDS file to let the university OP be
one (of several) places where the OpenID Consumer can go, to get the id
assertions. And an accredited 'blogging-as-courseware" site could have a
policy that constrains it to only use a list of carefully-vetted OPs
denominated "legitimate OP Providers" - intending by "legitimacy" to
ensure that there are special semantics attached when  user present the
UCI to that site. For example, one could be is asserting "by presenting
this (University-verifiable) UCI, I hereby attest that this is my own
work, I did not plagiarize, this is my final answer,..." and all the
other usual rules of student coursework.

The only way I think I can understand the role of an
"institutionally-provided OpenID" within the fundamental security model
of UCIs is using the draft OpenID2.0 spec's notion of: OP-Local
Identifier. 

Is that what folks are referring to?