Re: [ldap] Re: How to think in schemas?

[Adam Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org>]

>>>>For example, in an RDB with "people" data, you might fully normalize the
>>>>schema so that there is one and only one record for a household's
>>>>address, and then associate each person that lives at that address as
>>>>separate records with a foreign key to the address record.  Or,
>>>>depending on needs, you might denormalize that design, so that each
>>>>person's record includes its own copy of the address data.
>>>
>>>Totally irrelevant;  LDAP is not a relational database.  If you need a
>>>relational model with constraints and foriegn keys, etc... use a
>>>relational database.
>> I think the unspoken question here is, obviously, "what are the important
>> and useful tradeoffs in designing X.500-like schemas?  What are some good
>> ways of thinking about directory object classes?"
>Yes, thank you, that's specifically what I meant.

Your question is still probably better suited to the general LDAP list at 
umich.edu.  You'll get more responses to this type of question over there.