Skip to main content

Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

LDAP Issues and To-Dos

{{#eclipseproject:technology.higgins|eclipse_custom_style.css}} Here's the updated list of issues and todo's on our LDAP schema representation in OWL work:

  1. Class Definitions
    1. Handling for "ABSTRACT", "AUXILIARY", and "OBSOLETE" class definitions.
    2. Handling for 'oid' and 'oids' fields (short name as well as oid).
  2. Attribute Definitions
    1. Handling for matching rule specification on attribute definitions (i.e. "EQUALITY" "ORDERING", and "SUBSTRINGS").
    2. Handling for other attribute definition terms like "COLLECTIVE", "NO-USER-MODIFICATION", "USAGE", and "OBSOLETE" attributes.
    3. Operational attribute rdfs:domain specification (part of USAGE handling).
    4. Handling for 'oid' and 'oids' fields (short name as well as oid).
  3. Syntax Definitions
    1. Expand syntax map to include other well known syntaxes and vendor specific syntaxes.
    2. Make syntax map part of configuration file.
  4. Matching Rules
    1. These are applicable during searches as well as during modifications (in LDAP you can't have two equal attribute values on the same object). Hopefully the IdAS Filter can express what we need here, if we need anything besides the default matching rules to be applied.
    2. I don't believe there is anything to gain in trying to represent these in OWL since they are LDAP specific and don't really apply intrinsically within OWL either.
  5. Matching Rule Uses, DIT Content Rules, DIT Structure Rules, Name Forms
    1. I'm not sure what we can or should do with these yet. Any suggestions?
    2. For "version 1" of our generator, we will not attempt to support any of these in our LDAP ontologies.
  6. Schema differences between IETF Standards and rogues.
    1. See Mark's "OID and name uniqueness" e-mail and resulting thread [1]

See Also

Back to the top