Paul Millar [mailto:paul.millar@desy.de] said:
Well, if we're talking GLUE 2.0, then IDs are URIs, so section A.11 (page 64) should apply.
Hmm, I see a can of worms opening here :) Basic question, are our IDs supposed to have a scheme, and if so what? So far I've assumed that the URI spec doesn't require one: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2396#appendix-A Anyway I don't entirely see that A.11 helps since the placeholders vary depending on the scheme. In this particular case we have an extra few worms since the UserDomain ID is (probably) going to be the VO name, and things like UNDEFINED or UNDEFINEDVALUE are in fact valid VO names, albeit they would be a bit eccentric. You might object that they aren't especially unique, but then nor is "atlas" ... in EGEE I suspect we will avoid all this by the simple expedient of ignoring UserDomains completely, but unfortunately the schema currently marks the UserDomain relation as mandatory so you're forced to have the reference even if there is not, and will never be, an object to refer to! Stephen PS You could have a similar problem with the AdminDomainID - I doubt that there will be a site called UNDEFINED but again there is probably nothing to say that it isn't allowed. -- Scanned by iCritical.