Re: [higgins-dev] Re: Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL ontolog

[Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom Doman wrote:
> Yep.  I'm exercising "garbage in, garbage out" on that one for now. 
> The LDAP server I'm getting that from is a simple test server that
> doesn't even validate entries against the schema anyway.

The concern I have is that in your post you wrote that

> At least, we believe this is complete enough to call "version 1".
and that "I'll propose this to the Identity Schemas group".

I would have expected that a version 1 of an ontology proposed as the
Higgins base LDAP OWL ontology should use as a basis for definition
either the most recent standards-track LDAP schema, as defined in the
IETF LDAP RFCs, or the schema elements published in the IANA LDAP
registry, and not just the LDAP schema of a specific implementation
which differs from both of the above, since there is a consensus-building
process for whether a schema element is present or not in your server
or not.  It is difficult to review a ontology definition when it is not
clear whether certain features are deliberate design choices, or are
due to limitations of the LDAP schemas used as the source for your
ontology.

For example, I note that when comparing your file against RFC 4512
and RFC 4519, the schema is also missing the extensibleObject,
dcObject, uidObject classes, the supportedFeatures attribute, etc.
It would also be useful to consider having the schema defined in
RFC 4524, such as account and document, included.

Mark Wahl
Informed Control Inc.