Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

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

(Documentation)
(General)
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.
# Complex-valued Attributes are (now) equivalent to Node Relations
+
# Worth noting somewhere: Node Relations are only an abstract super-types for real, useful relations like "memberOf", "reportsTo", "friend". Or "hasFavoriteBook", "hasCreditCard", etc.  
#* We should get rid of Complex-valued Attributes
+
#* By the way, 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
 
# 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
 
# Need a simple-to-follow set of pictures that explain the data model

Revision as of 18:39, 4 March 2008

General

  1. Need a replacement term for "Node". Most higgins developers don't like it.
  2. Worth noting somewhere: Node Relations are only an abstract super-types for real, useful relations like "memberOf", "reportsTo", "friend". Or "hasFavoriteBook", "hasCreditCard", etc.
  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
      • Paul: we should document that this isn't allowed/possible.
  4. Allow zero-valued attributes
    1. http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03810.html
      • Paul: 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.
  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