Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be 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"
(→General) |
m (→General) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
# Complex-valued Attributes are (now) equivalent to Node Relations | # Complex-valued Attributes are (now) equivalent to Node Relations | ||
#* We should get rid of Complex-valued Attributes | #* 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 03:59, 3 March 2008
General
- Need a replacement term for "Node". Most higgins developers don't like it.
- Complex-valued Attributes are (now) equivalent to Node Relations
- 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
- 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
- Anything on this page should be logged in bugzilla
- 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)]
- Daniel points out that it would still be good to pass type on each value add:
- Resolution is that we can mix types.
- 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?
- Most agree that we should not mix [Paul reversed his opinion on this (he now agrees with allowing mixed types)]
- Many same-types attributes
- Allow zero-valued attributes
- 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.)
Related to higgins.owl
- 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.
- This entire wiki page: HOWL is out of date with the rest of this wiki
LDAP-specific Issues
- LDAP Issues and To-Dos --open issues specifically related to LDAP schema