You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to infrastructure-dev@apache.org by sebb <se...@gmail.com> on 2011/06/09 09:35:07 UTC
LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
family name and the full name.
Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
always the same.
For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
name should always be used.
This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
that the family name should either be public or there need to be
separate versions for the full and public versions.
Note: where a family name has two words - e.g. Lewis Ship - this could
perhaps be rendered in HTML output using an encoded space, e.g.
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 09:55:24AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 08:49, Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > Hey sebb,
> >
> > I have already extended the schema to include 4 of the 5 fields in the iclas.txt file.
> > The availid, cant really be recorded ;-) as this is your username.
> >
> > So we do now have the concept of 'public name', and 'legal name'
> >
> > I have added the values for my entry so as to show people what we can add. I have also edited the ACL, to only root/secretary to edit the all but the 'public name' which I have allowed root/secretary@/$SELF to edit.
>
> That entry looks as though it has all the needed fields.
>
> However, I suspect only the asf-icla-publicname should be publicly readable.
>
> >From the point of view of inputting the data, having entries for each
> ICLA field makes it much simpler.
>
> I assume that the cn is originally derived from the public name when a
> new entry is added?
NO, it's from iclas.txt - Note that I am referring to the 3rd field, as per below, when I say public name.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/foundation/officers/iclas.txt
## The first field is their userid *after* it has been created. Generally,
## the infrastructure team puts that in there once they confirm the
## availability of the id and create the account. Prior to that, it would
## read as "notinavail" (referring to CVSROOT/avail).
## The 2nd field is the person's real name.
## The 3rd field is their public name.
## The 4th their email (as noted on the signed CLA)
## The 5th field is the form on file. The 5th field can be extended, at a later
## time, to include other information as well.
##
## The 5th field can also contain the stem of the filename used for the CLA,
## separated from the form by a semi-colon.
## e.g. if the CLA is stored in the file first-last.pdf, then the 5th field is:
## Signed CLA;first-last
> Subsequent edits should presumably be made to the cn field, rather
> than the icla field?
>
> It's a bit complicated, because the asf-icla-publicname field has no
> corresponding entry in the CLA form itself.
> I'm not sure how the public name is defined, other than by covering
> letter or a note on the form itself.
Thats a fair point, im not sure what actually qualifies data for entry in this field. Though I am aware of one example, where the legal name is different to their public name.
> BTW, when I use ldapsearch the icla file field wraps:
>
> asf-icla-file: https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/iclas/tony-steve
> nson.pdf
This is an extremely annoying artifact of ldapsearch, when using it in scripts, I usually pipe it through perl -pe 's,\n ,,' - as the new line when wrapped is always indented by one.
>
> Is that a feature of ldapsearch or an error in the data?
>
> > We can certainly add 'sn', and 'givenName' - again they have been on my record for ages. Do we have a known good source from which to definitively take this info from? As your cited example below of 'lewis ship' which is not hyphenated would sure make ingesting them from iclas.txt quite difficult. Unless we ingest on a best efforts basis, and then tell committers to review their details and edit them if they are wrong (adding the fields to be edited in id.a.o is trivial)
> >
>
> +1
>
> >
> >
> > On 9 Jun 2011, at 08:35, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
> >>
> >> It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
> >> contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
> >> family name and the full name.
> >>
> >> Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
> >>
> >> Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
> >> and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
> >> always the same.
> >>
> >> For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
> >> name should always be used.
> >>
> >> This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
> >> that the family name should either be public or there need to be
> >> separate versions for the full and public versions.
> >>
> >> Note: where a family name has two words - e.g. Lewis Ship - this could
> >> perhaps be rendered in HTML output using an encoded space, e.g.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > - ---------------------------------------
> > Tony Stevenson
> >
> > tony@pc-tony.com // pctony@apache.org
> > tony@caret.cam.ac.uk
> >
> > http://blog.pc-tony.com
> >
> > GPG - 1024D/51047D66
> > - --------------------------------------
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
> > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> >
> > iF4EAREIAAYFAk3wevkACgkQZoUdOyVD4yOoBgEAjfgexsr8u+5lmRhpnrfmlEle
> > NyLl6lzWw5gBxySFsIsA/AtVjapb1kiKWlN0e0vtqsAUX6lK9+gsmLskYVmg5/+Z
> > =hSwC
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
>
--
Cheers,
Tony
---------------------------------------
Tony Stevenson
tony@pc-tony.com // pctony@apache.org
tony@caret.cam.ac.uk
http://blog.pc-tony.com
GPG - 1024D/51047D66
--------------------------------------"
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 9 June 2011 08:49, Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hey sebb,
>
> I have already extended the schema to include 4 of the 5 fields in the iclas.txt file.
> The availid, cant really be recorded ;-) as this is your username.
>
> So we do now have the concept of 'public name', and 'legal name'
>
> I have added the values for my entry so as to show people what we can add. I have also edited the ACL, to only root/secretary to edit the all but the 'public name' which I have allowed root/secretary@/$SELF to edit.
That entry looks as though it has all the needed fields.
However, I suspect only the asf-icla-publicname should be publicly readable.
>From the point of view of inputting the data, having entries for each
ICLA field makes it much simpler.
I assume that the cn is originally derived from the public name when a
new entry is added?
Subsequent edits should presumably be made to the cn field, rather
than the icla field?
It's a bit complicated, because the asf-icla-publicname field has no
corresponding entry in the CLA form itself.
I'm not sure how the public name is defined, other than by covering
letter or a note on the form itself.
BTW, when I use ldapsearch the icla file field wraps:
asf-icla-file: https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/iclas/tony-steve
nson.pdf
Is that a feature of ldapsearch or an error in the data?
> We can certainly add 'sn', and 'givenName' - again they have been on my record for ages. Do we have a known good source from which to definitively take this info from? As your cited example below of 'lewis ship' which is not hyphenated would sure make ingesting them from iclas.txt quite difficult. Unless we ingest on a best efforts basis, and then tell committers to review their details and edit them if they are wrong (adding the fields to be edited in id.a.o is trivial)
>
+1
>
>
> On 9 Jun 2011, at 08:35, sebb wrote:
>
>> Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
>>
>> It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
>> contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
>> family name and the full name.
>>
>> Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
>>
>> Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
>> and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
>> always the same.
>>
>> For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
>> name should always be used.
>>
>> This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
>> that the family name should either be public or there need to be
>> separate versions for the full and public versions.
>>
>> Note: where a family name has two words - e.g. Lewis Ship - this could
>> perhaps be rendered in HTML output using an encoded space, e.g.
>>
>
>
> Tony
>
> - ---------------------------------------
> Tony Stevenson
>
> tony@pc-tony.com // pctony@apache.org
> tony@caret.cam.ac.uk
>
> http://blog.pc-tony.com
>
> GPG - 1024D/51047D66
> - --------------------------------------
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>
> iF4EAREIAAYFAk3wevkACgkQZoUdOyVD4yOoBgEAjfgexsr8u+5lmRhpnrfmlEle
> NyLl6lzWw5gBxySFsIsA/AtVjapb1kiKWlN0e0vtqsAUX6lK9+gsmLskYVmg5/+Z
> =hSwC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hey sebb,
I have already extended the schema to include 4 of the 5 fields in the iclas.txt file.
The availid, cant really be recorded ;-) as this is your username.
So we do now have the concept of 'public name', and 'legal name'
I have added the values for my entry so as to show people what we can add. I have also edited the ACL, to only root/secretary to edit the all but the 'public name' which I have allowed root/secretary@/$SELF to edit.
We can certainly add 'sn', and 'givenName' - again they have been on my record for ages. Do we have a known good source from which to definitively take this info from? As your cited example below of 'lewis ship' which is not hyphenated would sure make ingesting them from iclas.txt quite difficult. Unless we ingest on a best efforts basis, and then tell committers to review their details and edit them if they are wrong (adding the fields to be edited in id.a.o is trivial)
On 9 Jun 2011, at 08:35, sebb wrote:
> Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
>
> It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
> contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
> family name and the full name.
>
> Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
>
> Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
> and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
> always the same.
>
> For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
> name should always be used.
>
> This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
> that the family name should either be public or there need to be
> separate versions for the full and public versions.
>
> Note: where a family name has two words - e.g. Lewis Ship - this could
> perhaps be rendered in HTML output using an encoded space, e.g.
>
Tony
- ---------------------------------------
Tony Stevenson
tony@pc-tony.com // pctony@apache.org
tony@caret.cam.ac.uk
http://blog.pc-tony.com
GPG - 1024D/51047D66
- --------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iF4EAREIAAYFAk3wevkACgkQZoUdOyVD4yOoBgEAjfgexsr8u+5lmRhpnrfmlEle
NyLl6lzWw5gBxySFsIsA/AtVjapb1kiKWlN0e0vtqsAUX6lK9+gsmLskYVmg5/+Z
=hSwC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org>.
On 6/9/11 9:49 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> On 6/9/11 9:35 AM, sebb wrote:
>> Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
>>
>> It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
>> contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
>> family name and the full name.
>>
>> Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
>>
>> Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
>> and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
>> always the same.
>>
>> For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
>> name should always be used.
>>
>> This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
>> that the family name should either be public or there need to be
>> separate versions for the full and public versions.
>>
>> Note: where a family name has two words - e.g. Lewis Ship - this could
>> perhaps be rendered in HTML output using an encoded space, e.g.
>>
> In LDAP, we usually use those three existing AttributeType to store
> such informations :
> - cn (commonName)
> - sn (surname)
> - gn (givenName)
>
> The sn and gn AT are used to respectively store the name (Lécharny)
> and the surname (Emmanuel).
Ooops, surname (Lécharny) and givenname (Emmanuel)
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 09:49:35AM +0200, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> On 6/9/11 9:35 AM, sebb wrote:
> >Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
> >
> >It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
> >contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
> >family name and the full name.
> >
> >Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
> >
> >Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
> >and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
> >always the same.
> >
> >For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
> >name should always be used.
> >
> >This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
> >that the family name should either be public or there need to be
> >separate versions for the full and public versions.
> >
> >Note: where a family name has two words - e.g. Lewis Ship - this could
> >perhaps be rendered in HTML output using an encoded space, e.g.
> >
> In LDAP, we usually use those three existing AttributeType to store
> such informations :
> - cn (commonName)
> - sn (surname)
> - gn (givenName)
Indeed, and some folks do have tehse values set. I do want to populate these, so I'll likely hack up a script to populate them this week sometime.
--
Cheers,
Tony
---------------------------------------
Tony Stevenson
tony@pc-tony.com // pctony@apache.org
tony@caret.cam.ac.uk
http://blog.pc-tony.com
GPG - 1024D/51047D66
--------------------------------------"
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@apache.org>.
On 6/9/11 9:35 AM, sebb wrote:
> Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
>
> It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
> contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
> family name and the full name.
>
> Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
>
> Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
> and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
> always the same.
>
> For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
> name should always be used.
>
> This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
> that the family name should either be public or there need to be
> separate versions for the full and public versions.
>
> Note: where a family name has two words - e.g. Lewis Ship - this could
> perhaps be rendered in HTML output using an encoded space, e.g.
>
In LDAP, we usually use those three existing AttributeType to store such
informations :
- cn (commonName)
- sn (surname)
- gn (givenName)
The sn and gn AT are used to respectively store the name (Lécharny) and
the surname (Emmanuel).
The cn is used to store the full name (Emmanuel Lécharny)
If you want to store some unique identifier, the uid AT can be used (in
my case, it would be elecharny).
All those AT are associated with the 'inetOrgPerson' ObjectClass, so the
entries must have thos ObjectClass (or an OC inheriting this OC).
Hope it helps.
A
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 9 June 2011 10:56, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9 June 2011 10:14, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:03 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However our web-pages are currently mainly sorted on "last name",
>>>> rather than full name.
>>>
>>> You're already suggesting a system that would allow us to change the
>>> way we do sorting (currently, manually by people adding their entries
>>> where they think it's appropriate).
>>>
>>> I'm just suggesting that we change to doing something that's nice and simple :-)
>>>
>
>>> I think you 'misunderestimate' the problem. Doing a string sort on the
>>> public name doesn't make it go away, but it's the most easily
>>> automatable, "least wrong" option I can come up with.
>>
>> Perhaps, but there's already an automated script (Perl) that checks
>> the sort order within icla.txt.
>
> Ok, but ICLA doesn't have the public/private distinction afaik, and
Yes, it does.
first and third columns are public info.
> it's not something we publish, right?
We do publish the public names from iclas.txt in
http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
> Your argument above, and the topic *I* understood we were discussing,
> was about our public webpages.
Yes, but I was using the script as an example to show that inexact
sorting is possible.
>> The sorting does not have to be perfect, but knowing the primary
>> sort-key would help a lot.
>>
>> It could be expressed as the number of space-separated words counting
>> from the right of the public name; default 1.
>
> It could; it could also be expressed as the number of space-separated
> words counting from the left of the public name, default 1.
Not ideal, as such a default applies to fewer people if one wants to
sort by last name.
I chose it as a way of avoiding culturally variable attributes.
> But why not simply sort on the public name, as it is presented?
Mainly I suppose because existing pages are generally sorted that way.
For example, all the http://people.apache.org/ committers pages.
They have the advantage of having the name parts already defined in
the FOAF files.
The missing ICLAs section is also sorted by last name; that is harder
to do but was presumably considered worthwhile when the code was
designed.
> Noirin
>
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:56:43AM +0200, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9 June 2011 10:14, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:03 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> However our web-pages are currently mainly sorted on "last name",
> >>> rather than full name.
> >>
> >> You're already suggesting a system that would allow us to change the
> >> way we do sorting (currently, manually by people adding their entries
> >> where they think it's appropriate).
> >>
> >> I'm just suggesting that we change to doing something that's nice and simple :-)
> >>
>
> >> I think you 'misunderestimate' the problem. Doing a string sort on the
> >> public name doesn't make it go away, but it's the most easily
> >> automatable, "least wrong" option I can come up with.
> >
> > Perhaps, but there's already an automated script (Perl) that checks
> > the sort order within icla.txt.
>
> Ok, but ICLA doesn't have the public/private distinction afaik, and
> it's not something we publish, right?
>
> Your argument above, and the topic *I* understood we were discussing,
> was about our public webpages.
>
> > The sorting does not have to be perfect, but knowing the primary
> > sort-key would help a lot.
> >
> > It could be expressed as the number of space-separated words counting
> > from the right of the public name; default 1.
>
> It could; it could also be expressed as the number of space-separated
> words counting from the left of the public name, default 1.
>
> But why not simply sort on the public name, as it is presented?
That is what I would have expected to do. If someone chooses to edit their public name, that is fine.
>
> Noirin
>
--
Cheers,
Tony
---------------------------------------
Tony Stevenson
tony@pc-tony.com // pctony@apache.org
tony@caret.cam.ac.uk
http://blog.pc-tony.com
GPG - 1024D/51047D66
--------------------------------------"
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 10:14, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:03 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> However our web-pages are currently mainly sorted on "last name",
>>> rather than full name.
>>
>> You're already suggesting a system that would allow us to change the
>> way we do sorting (currently, manually by people adding their entries
>> where they think it's appropriate).
>>
>> I'm just suggesting that we change to doing something that's nice and simple :-)
>>
>> I think you 'misunderestimate' the problem. Doing a string sort on the
>> public name doesn't make it go away, but it's the most easily
>> automatable, "least wrong" option I can come up with.
>
> Perhaps, but there's already an automated script (Perl) that checks
> the sort order within icla.txt.
Ok, but ICLA doesn't have the public/private distinction afaik, and
it's not something we publish, right?
Your argument above, and the topic *I* understood we were discussing,
was about our public webpages.
> The sorting does not have to be perfect, but knowing the primary
> sort-key would help a lot.
>
> It could be expressed as the number of space-separated words counting
> from the right of the public name; default 1.
It could; it could also be expressed as the number of space-separated
words counting from the left of the public name, default 1.
But why not simply sort on the public name, as it is presented?
Noirin
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 9 June 2011 10:14, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:03 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9 June 2011 09:44, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's best to stick to "legal name" and "public name", and
>>> simply do a string sort on public name.
>>
>> However our web-pages are currently mainly sorted on "last name",
>> rather than full name.
>
> You're already suggesting a system that would allow us to change the
> way we do sorting (currently, manually by people adding their entries
> where they think it's appropriate).
>
> I'm just suggesting that we change to doing something that's nice and simple :-)
>
>> There must be some way to indicate which part of a name is to be used
>> first when sorting.
>
> Usually it's known as "sort name by", and it won't give you a list
> that necessarily "looks" sorted.
>
> Using culturally appropriate sorting for the set of names I gave
> before would give you
>
> Paul Fenwick, Hugo van der Merwe, Van Riper, Christian van den Bosch
>
> Add in a patronymic, Björk Gunnarsdóttir (ok, I had to go to
> friends-of-friends for that, but still), you get
>
> Björk Gunnarsdóttir, Paul Fenwick, Hugo van der Merwe, Van Riper,
> Christian van den Bosch
>
> And that's without trying to decide how to alphabetise accented
> characters, some of which have different rules depending on the
> language :-)
>
>> It does not have to be called family name.
>
> I think you 'misunderestimate' the problem. Doing a string sort on the
> public name doesn't make it go away, but it's the most easily
> automatable, "least wrong" option I can come up with.
Perhaps, but there's already an automated script (Perl) that checks
the sort order within icla.txt.
It assumes sorting by last part of name, with some special case overrides.
It also handles accents reasonably well.
The sorting does not have to be perfect, but knowing the primary
sort-key would help a lot.
It could be expressed as the number of space-separated words counting
from the right of the public name; default 1.
> Noirin
>
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:03 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 09:44, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I think it's best to stick to "legal name" and "public name", and
>> simply do a string sort on public name.
>
> However our web-pages are currently mainly sorted on "last name",
> rather than full name.
You're already suggesting a system that would allow us to change the
way we do sorting (currently, manually by people adding their entries
where they think it's appropriate).
I'm just suggesting that we change to doing something that's nice and simple :-)
> There must be some way to indicate which part of a name is to be used
> first when sorting.
Usually it's known as "sort name by", and it won't give you a list
that necessarily "looks" sorted.
Using culturally appropriate sorting for the set of names I gave
before would give you
Paul Fenwick, Hugo van der Merwe, Van Riper, Christian van den Bosch
Add in a patronymic, Björk Gunnarsdóttir (ok, I had to go to
friends-of-friends for that, but still), you get
Björk Gunnarsdóttir, Paul Fenwick, Hugo van der Merwe, Van Riper,
Christian van den Bosch
And that's without trying to decide how to alphabetise accented
characters, some of which have different rules depending on the
language :-)
> It does not have to be called family name.
I think you 'misunderestimate' the problem. Doing a string sort on the
public name doesn't make it go away, but it's the most easily
automatable, "least wrong" option I can come up with.
Noirin
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 9 June 2011 09:44, Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:35 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
>>
>> It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
>> contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
>> family name and the full name.
>
> Eeep!
>
> I see many unspoken assumptions here that I think we need to be careful about.
>
> Sorting names is *hard*. Hell, even splitting names into "given" and
> "family" has pitfalls, and it's certainly not always appropriate to
> sort on "family name".
>
>> Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
>>
>> Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
>> and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
>> always the same.
>
> The distinction between legal name (which may or may not actually be
> the same as full name) and public name is, as far as I know, already
> being accounted for in the planned schema.
>
>> For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
>> name should always be used.
>
> Agreed, of course :-)
>
>> This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
>> that the family name should either be public or there need to be
>> separate versions for the full and public versions.
>
> I think you're suggesting that output should be sorted on family name.
> This is a) assuming that everyone *has* a family name, which isn't
> always the case; b) inappropriate for several cultures, particularly
> those where names are patronymic; c) not as straightforward as you
> think even if everyone does have a family name and none of them are
> patronyms.
>
> For example, what's the correct sort order for some (actual :-) )
> friends of mine?
>
> Van Riper, Christian van den Bosch, Hugo van der Merwe, Paul Fenwick
>
> (Yes, there's more than one correct answer.)
>
> I think it's best to stick to "legal name" and "public name", and
> simply do a string sort on public name.
However our web-pages are currently mainly sorted on "last name",
rather than full name.
There must be some way to indicate which part of a name is to be used
first when sorting.
It does not have to be called family name.
> Nóirín
>
Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:35 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
>
> It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
> contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
> family name and the full name.
Eeep!
I see many unspoken assumptions here that I think we need to be careful about.
Sorting names is *hard*. Hell, even splitting names into "given" and
"family" has pitfalls, and it's certainly not always appropriate to
sort on "family name".
> Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
>
> Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
> and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
> always the same.
The distinction between legal name (which may or may not actually be
the same as full name) and public name is, as far as I know, already
being accounted for in the planned schema.
> For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
> name should always be used.
Agreed, of course :-)
> This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
> that the family name should either be public or there need to be
> separate versions for the full and public versions.
I think you're suggesting that output should be sorted on family name.
This is a) assuming that everyone *has* a family name, which isn't
always the case; b) inappropriate for several cultures, particularly
those where names are patronymic; c) not as straightforward as you
think even if everyone does have a family name and none of them are
patronyms.
For example, what's the correct sort order for some (actual :-) )
friends of mine?
Van Riper, Christian van den Bosch, Hugo van der Merwe, Paul Fenwick
(Yes, there's more than one correct answer.)
I think it's best to stick to "legal name" and "public name", and
simply do a string sort on public name.
Nóirín