Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "Context Data Model 1.1 Open Issues"
(→Related to higgins.owl's relationship to the IdAS API) |
(→Related to Higgins.owl) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | ==Related to | + | ==Related to higgins.owl== |
# Higgins.owl: we need to add the full set of DatatypeAttribute subclasses that correspond to the XML Schema types. We currently have only StringDatatypeAttribute, Base64BinaryDatatypeAttribute, NormalizedStringDatatypeAttribute but need to add all the rest. | # Higgins.owl: we need to add the full set of DatatypeAttribute subclasses that correspond to the XML Schema types. We currently have only StringDatatypeAttribute, Base64BinaryDatatypeAttribute, NormalizedStringDatatypeAttribute but need to add all the rest. | ||
# At present, other than having an Attribute subclass for each of the std OWL (XML Schema-based) literal datatypes, we have defined no ObjectAttribute subclasses. The question is should we go a bit further and define some very common complex types such as postalAddress? or even tricky singled-stringed values such as zipcode? | # At present, other than having an Attribute subclass for each of the std OWL (XML Schema-based) literal datatypes, we have defined no ObjectAttribute subclasses. The question is should we go a bit further and define some very common complex types such as postalAddress? or even tricky singled-stringed values such as zipcode? | ||
# We need to develop an example of an ontology that is based on higgins.owl but that emphasises how to model relationships between [[Digital Subject]]s | # We need to develop an example of an ontology that is based on higgins.owl but that emphasises how to model relationships between [[Digital Subject]]s | ||
+ | # The 'source' metadata property is currently a SubjectRelationship (that points to a Digital Subject that is usually in some other Context). But there are times when we know more; when we know the source Attribute held by the "source" Digital Subject. Maybe we need 'sourceSubject' and 'sourceSubjectAttriubte'? | ||
==Related to higgins.owl's relationship to the IdAS API== | ==Related to higgins.owl's relationship to the IdAS API== | ||
# <none> | # <none> |
Revision as of 18:48, 29 September 2006
Related to higgins.owl
- Higgins.owl: we need to add the full set of DatatypeAttribute subclasses that correspond to the XML Schema types. We currently have only StringDatatypeAttribute, Base64BinaryDatatypeAttribute, NormalizedStringDatatypeAttribute but need to add all the rest.
- At present, other than having an Attribute subclass for each of the std OWL (XML Schema-based) literal datatypes, we have defined no ObjectAttribute subclasses. The question is should we go a bit further and define some very common complex types such as postalAddress? or even tricky singled-stringed values such as zipcode?
- We need to develop an example of an ontology that is based on higgins.owl but that emphasises how to model relationships between Digital Subjects
- The 'source' metadata property is currently a SubjectRelationship (that points to a Digital Subject that is usually in some other Context). But there are times when we know more; when we know the source Attribute held by the "source" Digital Subject. Maybe we need 'sourceSubject' and 'sourceSubjectAttriubte'?
Related to higgins.owl's relationship to the IdAS API
- <none>