Hi Janos, On 2002-12-05 13:58:19 +0100, Janos Zsako wrote: [...]
I have a new question, though (I quote from the original proposal):
From db-wg-admin@ripe.net Thu Dec 5 10:43:33 2002 From: Engin Gunduz <engin@ripe.net>
1. Objects that refer to a person or role object by name. a. There is only one object with this name. Solution: Update the inconsistent object so that it will contain the NIC handle instead of the name. Add appropriate remarks and changed attributes to the object to explain the reason for update.
In case the referring object is maintained (by a probably unresponsive maintainer, as you well suggested above) and the referred person happens not to be related to the referring object (i.e. the program inferred incorrectly the relationship), then the owner/maintainer of the object will not be able to delete the person object once it becomes unused. Would it not be advisable then to act as in case 1.c. (with a single person/role object being referenced by the newly created role object)?
In other words, it may be advisable to refine 1.a. by the following:
1.a.1. If the referring object is maintained, and the maintainer is different from the maintainer of the object with the referred name, then proceed as in 1.c. (If the latter object is not maintained, then the maintainers are by definition different.)
1.a.2. If the referring object is unmaintained or both objects are maintained by the same maintainer, then proceed as previously described.
This procedure may create superfluous role objects, but I would think the chances are low for this to happen and it is a price worth paying.
The upper limit for the number of objects we will create in this process is around 2000. Considering that there are ~800,000 person objects (of which ~280,000 are not referenced) 2000 is not a big number.
What do you think?
I will incorporate these into the proposal, along with other possible changes, and publish it before December 20th. Thanks for feedback... Best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group
Best regards, Janos