Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Context Data Model 1.1 Open Issues


  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


  1. Anything on this page should be logged in bugzilla
  2. 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.
  3. 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:
        2. (and follow-ups)
    2. Resolution is that we can mix types.
    3. Can an attribute have mixed values consisting of both simple and complex? Paul says no.
    4. Can we represent closed (non-mixed) types in OWL so that the LDAP CP can represent its schema?
  4. Many same-types attributes
  5. Allow zero-valued attributes
  6. Closed or open simple data types
    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 subclass simple xml schema types and use those.
      1. This is done in OWL by creating a class that subclasses the xml type.
      2. We can't currently associate a restriction pattern at this level

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 This entire wiki page: HOWL is out of date with the rest of this wiki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