Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Context Data Model 1.1 Open Issues

Revision as of 03:55, 3 March 2008 by (Talk | contribs) (Documentation)


  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. 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?
    4. Can we represent closed (non-mixed) types in OWL so that the LDAP CP can represent its schema?
  3. Many same-types attributes
  4. Allow zero-valued attributes
  5. 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 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 This entire wiki page: HOWL is out of date with the rest of this wiki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