Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

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

(Documentation)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
 
===General===
 
===General===
 
# Need a replacement term for "Node". Most higgins developers don't like it.
 
# Need a replacement term for "Node". Most higgins developers don't like it.
Line 11: Line 10:
  
 
# Anything on this page should be logged in bugzilla
 
# Anything on this page should be logged in bugzilla
# Tom: we need to add a lot of definition to the [[Higgins Data Model]] pages. It should say, for example, that your data types MUST and SHOULD existing data types. We need to reflect these changes within the [[Higgins Data Model]] pages.
 
 
# Mixed attribute value data types
 
# Mixed attribute value data types
 
## Most agree that we should not mix [Paul reversed his opinion on this (he now agrees with allowing mixed types)]
 
## Most agree that we should not mix [Paul reversed his opinion on this (he now agrees with allowing mixed types)]
Line 18: Line 16:
 
#### http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03818.html (and follow-ups)
 
#### http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03818.html (and follow-ups)
 
## Resolution is that we can mix types.
 
## Resolution is that we can mix types.
## Can an attribute have mixed values consisting of both simple and complex? Paul says no.
+
## Can an attribute have mixed values consisting of both simple and complex?  
 
## 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?
 
# Many same-types attributes
 
# Many same-types attributes
Line 27: Line 25:
 
## http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03821.html
 
## 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
 
## 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 subclass simple xml schema types and use those.
+
## 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.)
### This is done in OWL by creating a class that subclasses the xml type.
+
### We can't currently associate a restriction pattern at this level
+
  
 
===Related to higgins.owl===
 
===Related to higgins.owl===

Revision as of 03:55, 3 March 2008

General

  1. Need a replacement term for "Node". Most higgins developers don't like it.
  2. Complex-valued Attributes are (now) equivalent to Node Relations
    • We should get rid of Complex-valued Attributes
  3. Tony: We don't have a simplified description of the data model
  4. 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

Documentation

  1. Anything on this page should be logged in bugzilla
  2. Mixed attribute value data types
    1. Most agree that we should not mix [Paul reversed his opinion on this (he now agrees with allowing mixed types)]
      1. Daniel points out that it would still be good to pass type on each value add:
        1. http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03816.html
        2. http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03818.html (and follow-ups)
    2. Resolution is that we can mix types.
    3. Can an attribute have mixed values consisting of both simple and complex?
    4. Can we represent closed (non-mixed) types in OWL so that the LDAP CP can represent its schema?
  3. Many same-types attributes
    1. http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03806.html
  4. Allow zero-valued attributes
    1. http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03810.html
  5. Closed or open simple data types
    1. http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03821.html
    2. 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
    3. 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.)

Related to higgins.owl

  1. 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.
  2. This entire wiki page: HOWL is out of date with the rest of this wiki

LDAP-specific Issues

See Also

Back to the top