another lookup problem

  Hi David(s) !

=>=To what end?  Is the purpose of the database registration information
=>=lookup or a more general white pages service?  I' would suggest the
=>=former and leave the latter to the WHOIS++/LDAP/X.500 crowd.

  What's the *inherent technology* difference between a registration
  lookup and a general white pages service? 
  Sure, ultimately the number of entries...

  As soon as we have a production environment with these tools (both from
  technology, software, coverage, logistics and web access) I'll be happy
  to move ;-)

==>  
==>  - local langauge problems (European National Character Sets) which make
==>    it difficult to find out about a (arbitrarily chosen) transcription.
=
=Local language problems?  Heh.  Let me introduce you to traditional
=Chinese with all 100,000+ characters :-).

  Thank you. For the time being I just (have to) appreciate them as a
  piece of art.

  Unfortunately I lack the time to dive into that to the degree I would
  like to master. But if there is any special consideration of
  transcribing these letters (well, more local language independent
  symbols?) into 7bit ASCII for a DB I'd be happy to be clued in.

  What I was primarily referring to is the 7bit transcription of European
  local languages for "funny" characters. While I don't know about other
  countries, e.g. I'm perfectly aware that even *within the German
  region*, there is differences in defined transcriptions:

  	AT (and DE?)	a "sharp s" is formally written as "sz" but
	                usually we use the "ss" form in everyday
			transactions.
  	CH              the same is written as "ss"

  For Scandinavia there is a couple of different umlauts with double
  dots, crossing an "o" or ligatures, etc. 
  Do you reaaly know about the transcription? 

=>  The advantage of the whois
=>database serving as a simple registered object lookup mechanism is
=>that you don't have to worry (too much) about gunk like local language
=>support -- the registration database access method (whois) allows
=>lookups on registry objects, namely inetnums, handles, domains, route
=>objects, etc. of which people (generally :-)) are not a part.

  Then I don't understand why we have the recursive lookup for person
  objects...

=Yes, I'm arguing person: field contents should not be indexed, but
=I've been known as a radical in the past.  Note this would have
=solved the problem that brought this issue up (I think).

  Well, reality differs.

  Those of us who have to work with end-users have to process a lot of
  requests that involve dealing with person objects. Whether they are
  directly indexed or just referenced doesn't make a big difference.

  I want to find out whether some guy or gal is already in the DB - full
  stop. And it's more comfortable to do that with a wildcard replacing a
  "sharp s" or an umlau than being "radical" and try all the different
  possibilities that I can imageine.

=>  - comments from other environments, where the lack of this feature was
=>    quoted as a major obstacle to use this software 'cause this
=>    functionality is provided right now.
=
=If all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.
=This doesn't mean you should attach a blender to your hammer to allow
=making more consistent puree...

  Thank you :-) 
  I just wonder why you need a blender when you've got a hammer? 
  Just kidding :-)

  Wilfried.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Wilfried Woeber                :  e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
  Computer Center - ACOnet       :  
  Vienna University              :  Tel: +43 1 4065822 355
  Universitaetsstrasse 7         :  Fax: +43 1 4065822 170
  A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe :  NIC: WW144
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------