Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Context Data Model 1.1 Open Issues"

m (Related to Higgins.owl's relationship to the IdAS API)
(Related to Higgins.owl)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Related to Higgins.owl==
 
==Related to Higgins.owl==
# Should we rename DatatypeAttribute to SimpleAttribute, and similarly, ObjectAttribute to ComplexAttribute? This would line up better with Jim's latest API
+
# 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. We need to add Base64BinaryDatatypeAttribute, NormalizedStringDatatypeAttribute, ... and all the rest. (This is planned to be done prior to the next dev call on 9/28).
+
 
# 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

Revision as of 11:53, 28 September 2006

Related to Higgins.owl

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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

Related to higgins.owl's relationship to the IdAS API

  1. API currently assumes that the 'type' of the value of an Attribute can be determined a priori by an examination of the 'type' (see getType() on IProperty) of the IAttribute (IProperty). At best only a the supertype can be a priori determined, and in some cases multiple supertypes are allowed. (Details in Paul's email to Jim and the higgin-dev list of Fri 9/22)

Back to the top