|
|
| (27 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Introduction ==
| + | #REDIRECT [[Context Data Model 1.0]] |
| − | Although it can be used for almost any kind of data, the focus of the [[Higgins Global Graph]] (HGG) is to provide a foundation for integrating, unifying, and sharing identity-related data. In particular we are focused on information about a person, a group or an entire organization. This might include contact information, authentication data, preferences, email addresses, interests, employer-related information. An object representing a single person, might have relationships to other objects and other people in the same or different data contexts.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | See
| + | |
| − | * [http://dev.eclipse.org/viewsvn/index.cgi/org.eclipse.higgins/trunk/doc/org.eclipse.higgins.doc/Higgins-Data-Model-Intro.ppt?root=Technology_SVN&view=co Higgins Data Model Intro (PPT)] for an overview.
| + | |
| − | * [[Higgins Global Graph Background]] for information about motivations and design goals.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Core Semantics ==
| + | |
| − | The [[HGG]] is based on the core semantics of the W3C's [http://www.w3.org/RDF/ Resource Description Framework] (RDF). The subtle but important differences between [[HGG]] and RDF are derived from differences in the choice of identifiers used to identify objects in each model. RDF is based on pure HTTP URIs, whereas [[HGG]] is based on a more generalized URI called a [[Higgins Identifier]]. Objects identified by URIs in RDF are called ''Resources'', whereas in HGG they are identified by [[Higgins Identifier]]s and are called [[Node]]s.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[HGG]] also differs from RDF on a purely syntactic (semantically lossless) level. In RDF an object may have N properties of type T each of which has a single value whereas in [[HGG]] an object may only have 0..1 properties of type T but if it exists it may only have have 1..N values. Further, in [[HGG]] these properties are called [[Attribute]]s.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Domain Concepts ==
| + | |
| − | The [[Higgins Global Graph]] defines these [[Concepts]] (listed alphabetically):
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | # [[Attribute]]
| + | |
| − | # [[Context]] | + | |
| − | # [[ContextId]]
| + | |
| − | # [[Context Relation]]
| + | |
| − | # [[Context Correlation]]
| + | |
| − | # [[Data Range]] --formerly [[Attribute Value Datatype]]
| + | |
| − | # [[Entity]]
| + | |
| − | # [[Node]] --formerly [[Digital Subject]]
| + | |
| − | # [[NodeId]]
| + | |
| − | # [[Node Relation]]
| + | |
| − | # [[Node Correlation]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Higgins Ontology Language (HOWL) ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * See [[HOWL]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === Extending HOWL ===
| + | |
| − | HOWL is a base ontology. To be useful in real-world applications developers must develop specialized ontologies based on HOWL that describe a specific concrete domain.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | For example, if a developer wanted to describe a CRM database, she would create an OWL ontology that would describe the data objects in the CRM database. This CRM database is called a [[Context]] in Higgins. If, for example, the database contained records about customers and those customers had full-names and email addresses, then the developer would define "Customer" as a sub-class of [[Node]] and "full-name" and "email" as kinds of [[Attribute]]s.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Here are some HOWL-based Ontologies (''note - these need to be updated''):
| + | |
| − | * [[test-person Example Context Ontology]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Person-with-address Example Context Ontology]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Person-with-friend Example Context Ontology]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Open Issues==
| + | |
| − | * [[Data Model Open Issues]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == References ==
| + | |
| − | ===RDF/OWL Related Resources===
| + | |
| − | * OWL
| + | |
| − | ** W3C OWL working group: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Working_Group
| + | |
| − | ** OWL 1.1 at Google Code: http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/
| + | |
| − | ** OWL 1.1 WD 8: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl11-syntax/
| + | |
| − | * Semantic Web (RDF/OWL) Resources
| + | |
| − | ** Toolkit: [http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/toolkits/ Developers Guide to Semantic Web Toolkits]
| + | |
| − | ** Reference documents: [http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/#Current W3C Web Ontology Working Group]
| + | |
| − | ** Tutorial: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/ISWC2003/Tutorial/
| + | |
| − | * Normalization to OWL/RDF
| + | |
| − | ** [http://www.ldap.com/1/spec/schema/ont.shtml Schemat]
| + | |
| − | ** Sebastian Dietzold, Generating RDF Models from LDAP Directories (PDF), [http://www.semanticscripting.org/SFSW2006/ 2nd Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web] co-located with the [http://www.eswc2006.org/ 3rd European Semantic Web Conference], June 12, 2006
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Misc Resources===
| + | |
| − | * http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Identity_Schemas
| + | |
| − | * "D3.2: Models" FIDIS, October, 2005, ([http://www.fidis.net/fileadmin/fidis/deliverables/fidis-wp2-del2.3.models.pdf PDF] 74 pages). Summary: "The objective of this document is to present in a synthetic way different models of representation of a person ("person schema") that can be used in different application domains.
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.nmi-edit.org/eduPerson/internet2-mace-dir-eduperson-200604.html eduPerson spex]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Links ==
| + | |
| − | * [http://eclipse.org/higgins Higgins Home]
| + | |
