RE: Registration of non-LDAP schemas?

[Jim Whitehead <ejw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comments below:

On Wednesday, January 28, 1998 11:12 PM, Christopher W Apple 
[SMTP:capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> >In reading through "Directory Schema Listing Requirements",
> >draft-apple-schema-rqmts-list-03 (currently expired)
>
> The expire date in the document that I sent to the I-D Editor
> was May 8, 1998. Are you saying that you can no longer find it
> in any of the I-D repositories?

No, I apparently misread the submission date as the expiration date, my 
bad.  I can still retrieve the spec. from the I-D repository.

> >This doesn't appear to require a large change to the requirements 
document.
>
> You're correct. But the requirements document is not really the issue. 
Its
> all the other documents that require oodles of changes, unless you have
> separate listing procedures documents for each 
protocol/technology/mark-up
> language for which you wish to list schema. While, I'm pretty sure that
> there is some happy middle ground between having 1 procedures document 
for
> all such schema listing types and having 1 procedures doc for _each_
> schema listing type, I'm not sure that anyone has a good answer to where
> and how such happiness can be achieved. At least not yet. I think this
> evolve over time and that we should not try to come up with a procedures
> document overnight that covers every type of schema listing possible.

Since the technical approach of using {attribute name}: {attribute value} 
type a-v pairs runs through the other documents, it does seem likely that 
different schemas, such as XML, will require a different approach.

> I would argue that DTDs for XML schema listings are part of the content
> and not of the metadata. Schema listing service metadata is used to 
catalog
> listings and should not contain information which actually helps to 
specify
> the details of a particular schema. Thus, I think that it is still 
appropriate
> to constrain metadata structure as the requirements document currently 
does.
> But, I confess to not being an expert on DTDs. If my understanding of 
them
> is misguided or mistaken, could someone chime in and explain why XML
> listings would need a different metadata structure than any other 
listings
> stored in the repository?

Hmm, to the best of my understanding, I think you're saying this is a 
"by-reference" vs. "by-value" issue.  The approach of this group seems to 
be a "by-reference" approach, whereas you're feeling that the DTDs are a 
"by-value" approach.  Is this a good summary?

> >So, the question I raise is: should non-LDAP schemas be capable of
> >registration and retrieval using the mechanisms defined by this working
> >group?
> >
> >- Jim
>
> Eventually. The timeframe in which the service is opened up to
> non-directory-service schemas is open for debate. The only answer
> that is plausible (in the most general sense): not immediately.

Staged implementation of the listing service sounds OK to me, but I do want 
to make sure that in the haste to create a listing for directory schemas, 
listing of other schemas isn't made more difficult, or awkward.

- Jim