I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Having an aux class, which is the object equivalent of a capsule, serve as the superclass for a structural entry doesn't make sense at all. Even if X.501 doesn't prevent it, we should.
And yes, sadly, I've seen plenty of examples. None of them, however, could be justified. ;-)
regards,
John
John Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Corporation
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
FAX: +1.719.785.0644
email: john.strassner@intelliden.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Dally [mailto:kdally@mitre.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7:58 AM
To: Jim Sermersheim
Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Re: Models: Subclassing
Hi Jim!
There are no restrictions in X.501 on structural and auxiliary classes being subclasses of one another. Although it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I have seen cases where several structural object classes have an auxiliary as the superclass. I can't think of an example of the reverse, off hand.
Thanks,
Kathy
Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>
> Section 2.4 describes object class subclassing, but should express the
> effect of subclassing (namely that a subclass inherits the MUST and
> MAY
> list(s) of superior object classes in its superclass chain, but does not
> inherit Name Forms or DIT Content Rules)
>
> Section 2.4.2 states "Structural object classes cannot subclass
> auxiliary object classes." and Section 2.4.3 states "Auxiliary object
> classes cannot subclass structural object classes.". I can't find
> these restrictions in X.501--can you point out the reference?
>
> Jim