LDAP Issues and To-Dos

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 definition attributes.
2. Attribute Definitions
   1. Handling for ""EQUALITY", "ORDERING", "SUBSTRING", "SINGLE-VALUE", "COLLECTIVE", "NO-USER-MODIFICATION", "USAGE", and "OBSOLETE" attributes.
   2. Operational attribute rdfs:domain specification (part of USAGE handling).
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 really only applicable during searches and will have to be dealt with behind IdAS APIs together with our query format. Hopefully SPARQL 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. DIT Structure, DIT Content, Nameforms
   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

• Higgins Wiki
• IdAS Data Model