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"
(→Open Issues) |
(→Open Issues) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
#* We've had a vote and "Entity" won | #* We've had a vote and "Entity" won | ||
#* We're trying to get a telecon together to close this issue | #* We're trying to get a telecon together to close this issue | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
# Can we represent closed (non-mixed) types in OWL so that the LDAP CP can represent its schema? | # Can we represent closed (non-mixed) types in OWL so that the LDAP CP can represent its schema? | ||
# Ability to declare user-defined Classes to be 'closed', that is instances of them should follow the class definition, but not include any other "extra" properties. (same as previous?) | # Ability to declare user-defined Classes to be 'closed', that is instances of them should follow the class definition, but not include any other "extra" properties. (same as previous?) | ||
Line 15: | Line 11: | ||
#* Paul asserts that we have the ability already to specify a format constraint along with a data type. For example, one could say the data type of an attribute is normalizedString, but constrained to a pattern that looks like a telephone number | #* Paul asserts that we have the ability already to specify a format constraint along with a data type. For example, one could say the data type of an attribute is normalizedString, but constrained to a pattern that looks like a telephone number | ||
#* We can do this by creating a [[Data Range]]. A [[Data Range]] has a base XML Schema type (e.g. string) as well as all of the XML Schema facets (e.g. pattern, etc.) | #* We can do this by creating a [[Data Range]]. A [[Data Range]] has a base XML Schema type (e.g. string) as well as all of the XML Schema facets (e.g. pattern, etc.) | ||
+ | # Worth noting somewhere: Node Relations are only an abstract super-types for real, useful relations like "memberOf", "reportsTo", "friend". Or "hasFavoriteBook", "hasCreditCard", etc. | ||
+ | # Tony: We don't have a simplified description of the data model | ||
+ | #* Need a simple-to-follow set of pictures that explain the data model | ||
+ | #* This PPT was updated to the latest concepts terms and improved a bit based on feedback from the Jan/Provo F2F: [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] | ||
== Resolved Issues == | == Resolved Issues == |
Revision as of 18:52, 4 March 2008
Open Issues
- Need a replacement term for "Node".
- Most higgins developers don't like it.
- We've had a vote and "Entity" won
- We're trying to get a telecon together to close this issue
- Can we represent closed (non-mixed) types in OWL so that the LDAP CP can represent its schema?
- Ability to declare user-defined Classes to be 'closed', that is instances of them should follow the class definition, but not include any other "extra" properties. (same as previous?)
- This entire wiki page: HOWL is out of date with the rest of this wiki
- Closed or open simple data types
- http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03821.html
- Paul asserts that we have the ability already to specify a format constraint along with a data type. For example, one could say the data type of an attribute is normalizedString, but constrained to a pattern that looks like a telephone number
- We can do this by creating a Data Range. A Data Range has a base XML Schema type (e.g. string) as well as all of the XML Schema facets (e.g. pattern, etc.)
- Worth noting somewhere: Node Relations are only an abstract super-types for real, useful relations like "memberOf", "reportsTo", "friend". Or "hasFavoriteBook", "hasCreditCard", etc.
- Tony: We don't have a simplified description of the data model
- Need a simple-to-follow set of pictures that explain the data model
- This PPT was updated to the latest concepts terms and improved a bit based on feedback from the Jan/Provo F2F: Higgins Data Model Intro.PPT
Resolved Issues
- Mixed attribute value data types
- Daniel points out that it would still be good to pass type on each value add:
- Resolution: we can mix types.
- Can an attribute have mixed values consisting of both simple and complex?
- Resolution: Yes.
- Many same-types attributes
- http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03806.html
- Resolution: No. (We should document that this isn't allowed/possible)
- Allow zero-valued attributes
- http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03810.html
- Resolution: we should not allow zero-valued attributes in the model per se. It is true that for access control reasons, no value will be returned in some cases.
LDAP-specific Issues
- LDAP Issues and To-Dos --open issues specifically related to LDAP schema