Re: [db-wg] Proposal for automated clean-up of references by name

[Engin Gunduz engin@localhost]

Hi Janos,

On 2002-12-05 13:58:19 +0100, Janos Zsako wrote:
[...]
> I have a new question, though (I quote from the original proposal):
> 
> >   From db-wg-admin@localhost Thu Dec  5 10:43:33 2002
> >   From: Engin Gunduz engin@localhost
> 
> >      1.   Objects that refer to a person or role object by name.
> >            a. There is only one object with this name.
> >               Solution: Update the inconsistent object so that it 
> >               will contain the NIC handle instead of the name. Add 
> >               appropriate remarks and changed attributes to the object 
> >               to explain the reason for update.
> 
> In case the referring object is maintained (by a probably unresponsive
> maintainer, as you well suggested above) and the referred person happens
> not to be related to the referring object (i.e. the program inferred
> incorrectly the relationship), then the owner/maintainer of the object
> will not be able to delete the person object once it becomes unused.
> Would it not be advisable then to act as in case 1.c. (with a single
> person/role object being referenced by the newly created role object)?
> 
> In other words, it may be advisable to refine 1.a. by the following:
> 
> 1.a.1. If the referring object is maintained, and the maintainer is
> different from the maintainer of the object with the referred name,
> then proceed as in 1.c. (If the latter object is not maintained, then
> the maintainers are by definition different.)
> 
> 1.a.2. If the referring object is unmaintained or both objects are
> maintained by the same maintainer, then proceed as previously described.
> 
> This procedure may create superfluous role objects, but I would think
> the chances are low for this to happen and it is a price worth paying.

The upper limit for the number of objects we will create in this
process is around 2000. Considering that there are ~800,000 person
objects (of which ~280,000 are not referenced) 2000 is not a big
number.

> What do you think?

I will incorporate these into the proposal, along with other
possible changes, and publish it before December 20th.

Thanks for feedback...

Best regards,
--
Engin Gunduz
RIPE NCC Database Group

> 
> Best regards,
> Janos