This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
Modifying references to contact info in the RIPE DB
- Previous message (by thread): Modifying references to contact info in the RIPE DB
- Next message (by thread): Modifying references to contact info in the RIPE DB
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Joao Luis Silva Damas
joao at ripe.net
Thu Jun 24 17:00:21 CEST 1999
Hi, I explicitly excluded those objects from this run. I can't possibly think of a simple script that can take that kind of decisions. I knew this thing was going to be a bit polemic so I am trying to split into smaller problems and stages that we can all agree to. Hopefully every step will reduce the number of objects that need repairs. And believe me, it's not the same to have to fix 250000 objects than to fix 25000. Somehow the latter seems a bit more feasible (from a "let's deal with this" attitude). The RIPE DB has been around for a long time and it's requirements and constraints have evolved a lot. I don't pretend to be able to solve all problems and certainly not all at once, but I think each step takes us closer. So, can we agree to proceed with our suggestion as stated below? ** Change references by names to references by nic handle where these are unique (there are not already more than two persons with the same referenced name). ** For the cases where the ambiguity is already there: we'll look at them, try to categorize them and maybe identify another subset which can be handled by drawing information from some other source. We'll get back to you with our suggestion (and we take the two you mention as input). Any input is most welcome. Regards, Joao "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber at cc.univie.ac.at> writes: * True, for the case where there is a strict one-to-one mapping, * e.g the recursion using the name returns *one* object. * * What do you suggets to do with the case where the recursion, based on * the names, returns a *set* of objects? * I can see 2 approaches (at least): * * - do not perform the handle substitution for that referring object * and put it on the list of those requiring human intervention * * - expand the xxxx-c: list (which? the tech-c:?) to refer to *all* * objects, but by ref'ing their handles * * While human beings are quite clever in selecting the "proper" instance * of a person: object (by looking at country, address, email,...) a script * might be quite clueless with that respect :-) * * Wilfried. * -------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at * Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 * Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 * Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 * A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 * -------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
- Previous message (by thread): Modifying references to contact info in the RIPE DB
- Next message (by thread): Modifying references to contact info in the RIPE DB
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]