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) |
(→See Also) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
### This is done in OWL by creating a class that subclasses the xml type. | ### 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 | ### We can't currently associate a restriction pattern at this level | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[LDAP Issues and To-Dos]] --open issues specifically related to LDAP schema | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
* [http://eclipse.org/Higgins Higgins Home] | * [http://eclipse.org/Higgins Higgins Home] | ||
* [[Higgins Data Model]] | * [[Higgins Data Model]] | ||
Revision as of 21:45, 31 January 2008
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.
Bugs
- Need to document that uniqueIdentifiers are immutable
- Max cardinality of lastVerifiedFromSource and lastVerifyAttempt should be 1 not N
General
- Need a simple-to-follow set of pictures that explain the data model
- 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.
- Tony: We don't have a simplified description of the data model
- 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? Paul says no.
- 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 subclass simple xml schema types and use those.
- 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
- LDAP Issues and To-Dos --open issues specifically related to LDAP schema