www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nóirín Plunkett <noi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: LDAP custom-asf schema - family name?
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2011 08:44:00 GMT
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:35 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tony wrote that he is working on the custom-asf schema currently.
> It would be very useful for generating sorted lists of names if LDAP
> contained each person's given name and family name - or at least the
> family name and the full name.


I see many unspoken assumptions here that I think we need to be careful about.

Sorting names is *hard*. Hell, even splitting names into "given" and
"family" has pitfalls, and it's certainly not always appropriate to
sort on "family name".

> Is that something that exists already, or is being considered?
> Also, there is a distinction between a person's full name (legal name)
> and their name as they wish it to be known publicly. These are not
> always the same.

The distinction between legal name (which may or may not actually be
the same as full name) and public name is, as far as I know, already
being accounted for in the planned schema.

> For the purposes of generating public output, of course the public
> name should always be used.

Agreed, of course :-)

> This is not always directly related to the full name, so it implies
> that the family name should either be public or there need to be
> separate versions for the full and public versions.

I think you're suggesting that output should be sorted on family name.
This is a) assuming that everyone *has* a family name, which isn't
always the case; b) inappropriate for several cultures, particularly
those where names are patronymic; c) not as straightforward as you
think even if everyone does have a family name and none of them are

For example, what's the correct sort order for some (actual :-) )
friends of mine?

Van Riper, Christian van den Bosch, Hugo van der Merwe, Paul Fenwick

(Yes, there's more than one correct answer.)

I think it's best to stick to "legal name" and "public name", and
simply do a string sort on public name.


View raw message