Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: Stef@ICS.UCI.EDU (Einar Stefferud)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: X.500 name-space question
Message-ID: <4049.663536827@nma>
Date: 10 Jan 91 20:31:44 GMT
Reply-To: Stef@ICS.UCI.EDU
Lines: 26
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 10 Jan 91 13:35:06 +0000.
             <9101100545.aa04574@ICS.UCI.EDU>

To generalize a bit on Colin's remark:  It is critical to look at the
structuring problem from the point of view the lookup end of the
operation, not the data loading end.

I have often found companies trying to find ways to get their "root"
higher in the tree, like trying to get an OID arc at the COUNTRY level
(because they are MULTINATIONAL).  I claim that it is a natural human
phenomenon to want to be higher in trees of all kinds.  (Now, if we
could put the root at the bottom...)

My obsevation is that few non-IBM people are going to look for an IBM
Office address by first looking for IBM Worldwide.  They are going to be
looking for an address in some place, and not just anyplace in the whole
world.

Now, I expect that this has to be balanced between two main populations
of users:  INTERNAL who look at the directory as a CORPORATE thing, and
want to find people the way Brian suggested, and PUBLIC who are on the
outside looking to find an address in some specific locality.

How we balance the organization of the directory information to meet the
needs of both populations is a question I am not able to answer, in
general or in particular for any given case.

I would be interested in learning more about how to do this, and I
expect that many other people would also.  Cheers...\Stef