RE: A philosophical question about large directory structures

+ >Referrals are URL's and therefore always unique.
+ 
+ say that in the presence of someone who loves URNs (but wear an
+ asbestos suit :-)

Are we talking religion or mathematics or are we just having fun? I was talking common sense. What I meant of course is that the result of the URL function is unique. You didn't get that?

+ 
+ >  So if you register at an referral server no name spaces are imposed.
+ 
+ au contraire - the name space of URLs (method, hostname if method 
+ is LDAP:) 
+ is imposed on the top of the name spaces used by DNs. The 
+ resulting 2-level 
+ namespace is more likely to be disjunct (no 2 objects have the 
+ same name at 
+ any instant in time), but more likely to be multiply populated (multiple 
+ names resolve to the same object).

The DN function alone can also be multiply populated (is that the correct mathematical name for a many-to-one mapping??), but what about it?

+ >  Now what is the difference between registering according to 
+ the imposed 
+ > name spaces and registering to an ldap referral server? It is still a 
+ > matter of registering (again, without having a clear idea about what 
+ > registering should be). The difference would be that the distribution 
+ > according to a DIT is no longer possible.
+ 
+ And that DN-valued references between namespaces are impossible; 
+ they have 
+ to be URL-valued.

yes, but why would you want DN-valued references? 
 
+ >  And probably one would need many more (i.e. more elaborated) ldap 
+ > referrals without imposed name spaces than with them. I don't 
+ think that 
+ > is a big deal. Many other possibilities are still open.
+ 
+ that's for sure!
+ 
+ >The focus IMHO should be on the registration (or discovery) of 
+ servers and 
+ >heir content. Not on the name spaces.
+ 
+ I think we need to talk about services, not servers.....and we 
+ have to name 
+ them somehow, if we want to get rid of "The Service" (which is 
+ unique, and 
+ therefore doesn't need a name).

That's a good idea.

+ The (DNS) name of their (main) server isn't a solution for naming 
+ services 
+ I feel good about.

If you really think that currently disjunct WP directory services (just an example)can be linked together, you better be very pragmatic about it. A Grand Unified Naming Scheme (....) for WP might be a too hostile approach ;-) A mechanism based on ldap referrals might be a more friendly approach. Maybe you should work out both approaches and see which comes out as the best one regarding technical implementation and organisational issues.

Peter