Our schema and data model does not denote all the aspects of a member's account or record

Where?

SugarCRM, REST API, OAI, Participation Reports, Admin tool/MM, and likely Auth. More? probably Intacct?

What's the situation?

Lots of our members do things on behalf of each other, like undertake content registration (but maybe a separate member hosts and perhaps does the reference linking, or hosting the content but not paying the bills, or wants to have permissions to update book metadata but not preprint metadata, or ... numerous scenarios). Our model of Service Providers and Sponsored Orgs is out of date and needs more layers to account for the increased and increasing nuances. We are currently trying to record 'provenance' through CRM instead of through metadata. Which means it is hidden from members and users. Members often don't know why they haven't included have e.g. abstracts because they've outsourced the XML work to a third party who isn't in touch with Crossref other than in a technical way and who we don't even know about.

What does it make more difficult?

• Advising which type of account a new applicant should be in sometimes takes several people and a discussion each time. Should they be a Sponsor; Service Provider; Sponsoring Member; Sponsored Org; Sponsored member; Technical Contact; or Random Account With Depositor privileges?
• We are not currently supporting or revealing all the aspects of the provenance of the scholarly record. And many societies' works currently look like larger publishers' works, just because they are the ones working with Crossref.

How can we improve it?

Denote in both input and output schemas and in all relevant tools not just the 'member' (account level) and the 'publisher' (prefix level) but specifically denote 'publisher-editorial, 'publisher-technical/platform' 'depositor' ... possibly more. There is a deck on 'layered accounts' that lists many of the things members or non-members may do on behalf of other members.