Re: Models: Schema references to undefined entities

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 07:35 AM 2/10/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>>> For example, an attribute type defined by the server's standard
>>>>> setup may have to be omitted because of a name conflict with a
>>>>> locally defined attribute type.  One could edit the attribute out of
>>>>> the object class which uses it as well, but that's uglier since
>>>>> clients would receive an incorrect definition of that object class.
>>>>
>>>> If the object class references the attribute type by name isn't there
>>>> still a naming conflict? IMHO the 'locally defined attribute type'
>>>> gets referenced thus changing the object class definition. Maybe it's
>>>> me but this sounds rather strange to me.
>>
>> Sorry, I forgot to mention that I thought of replacing the attribute's
>> name, if any, with its OID in the object class description.
> 
> I think this is just another facet of the "short names are
> ambiguous" issue.  Does the current text, in particular 6.2,
> adequately address this issue?  If not, what changes do you
> suggest?

None.  I wasn't talking about changes in the drafts here, but
how to change the text of the object class description in a server
without changing its semantics.

-- 
Hallvard