Re: Models: Subclassing

["Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@novell.com>]

That's what I suspected. We should just make sure that:
1) there aren't valid uses of performing these types of subclassing
(especially that are in use today)
2) we attempt to coordinate this clarification with the X.500 people
(at least raise this to their attention)
 
Jim

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 1/28/03 12:06:59 PM >>>
At 11:22 AM 1/27/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>Section 2.4 describes object class subclassing, but should express
the
>effect of subclassing (namely that a subclass inherits the MUST and
MAY
>list(s) of superior object classes in its superclass chain, but does
not
>inherit Name Forms or DIT Content Rules)
>
>Section 2.4.2 states "Structural object classes cannot subclass
>auxiliary object classes." and Section 2.4.3 states "Auxiliary object
>classes cannot subclass structural object classes.". I can't find
these
>restrictions in X.501--can you point out the reference?

You won't find any clear, explicit statement in X.501 regarding this.

I added the above statements to address what I consider to
be a technical omission in the existing specification.  The
alternative would be describe the semantics of such subclassing.
I didn't take this alternative as such subclassing makes no
sense to me.

Kurt