Re: thing, device, application

Hi Peter,

--On July 6, 2011 9:30:38 AM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter <at> stpeter.im> 
wrote:

>> I'd be very cautious about defining something broader than what we need.
>
> Simon, I find the arguments you and Cyrus have provided persuasive. I'm
> now more comfortable with KIND:application for the XMPP use case. (Yes,
> we might want to define subtypes even for applications.) If people have
> use cases for KIND:device or KIND:vehicle or whatever, then I think they
> can define those separately.
>
> One possible concern is a proliferation of KIND values. But I don't
> actively worry about that, and I'd rather label things accurately.

Hrmm, so I wonder if we start re-using LDAP objectClasses for KIND, might 
it not be better to tackle the last item on our current charter: "LDAP 
mapping to the new vCard format without loss of data.".

I am thinking that objectClass applicationProcess probably has a whole 
bunch of attributes specific to it in the LDAP world and we should map 
those over.

That also begs the question of whether KIND should have a direct 
relationship with LDAP objectClasses.

So maybe we need to think more closely about the whole LDAP<->vcard thing 
and decide how far down that road we want to go...

--

-- 
Cyrus Daboo