My degree is in philosophy; specifically I studied what would be called cognitive science or philosophy of mind. I still read papers and articles about the field occasionally as they come to my attention. Doing some pleasure reading this father’s day weekend I came across this passage in a paper called “Conceptual Problems in Memetics in a Multi-Level View of Evolution and Behaviour” which seemed to call out a problem that is worth considering for those contemplating the next generation of directories:
Consider the problems of ostension for a mother who points out and names the species of a bird that is singing in a tree to her infant child. How does the child know what precisely is being given a name: the name could refer to all trees containing birds, or all small, noisy objects, or of that particular bird, or of the underside of its belly? To avoid ambiguity, the child needs some low-level schemas, perhaps reflecting the nature of taxonomy and the economy of expression, which act as “attractors” for the acquisition of new higher-level schemas. These aspects might allow a child to surmise firstly that the mother is referring to the bird in itself, and not as part of its relation to this particular tree, or the fact that the bird happens to be singing. Secondly, these aspects should allow the child to realise[sic] that it is the “whole” object of the bird that is being referred to, rather than, say, only its underside. While the child has not yet developed a detailed knowledge of birds and their general relations to other very basic categories in the world, he or she is unlikely to expect the mother to be referring to detailed aspects of a bird.
We all know what someone means when they say “there is a need to track all the accounts and rights granted to those accounts that are associated with any specific person”. There are definitive ideas of an account, a person and a right – though a right is likely the one most likely to admit something inexact into the conversation. But these very concrete things are not first order objects in directories, they don’t have their own schema. Instead they are all persons or, worse, accounts, and the very obvious classes they fit into described in that simple to understand requirement are merely attributes assigned to them. That seems like something worth fixing. When the technical and real life descriptions diverge that much, it can never be good for your ability to get things done.
If you look at the language I’m using, my prejudice becomes clear. The concepts of object oriented programming seem to be very useful in this problem space. The idea of having a base class, like a person, and having classes that extend that to be an employee or similar flows very well. It also fits very well with reality. All these entities are people after all. And that base object becomes implemented through a schema for entries in a directory. If one organization relies heavily on contractors and another does not, it’s likely that contractors will have very different “schemas” defining them in each. If those two organization now want to share data about identity including the contractors, they may find themselves with a big job of mapping. If they had a shared basic schema that has been used by another more complex one as a parent in the more contractor reliant shop, there are well established ways for those interactions to take placed based on patterns from object oriented designs. And imagine how much better that could be using something similar to a common schema everyone used.
Doing things along these OO lines would also allow us to do more with less. Since the base classes are shared, changes to those would make their way through everything. And as new use cases arise, simple inheritance would allow for quick work making these new classes of schemas that map to the needs.