[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [higgins-dev] Alt data model proposal (was Higgins data model)
|
Intent of an 'abstract data model' (intent
behind original proposal) is to provide a perspective on access and navigation
between managed data artifacts (Context, DigitalSubjects, etc). This
way a framework can allow for navigating and if necessary, normalizing
data to an identity service. This helps having directories, DBs, files,
or other forms of federating identity information from multiple sources.
What I observe in the alternate proposal
is a mechanism to codify these abstract data relationships and navigation,
in a particular/specific rendering (using object classes, hierarchical
model, etc). It is fine for this proposed data model to be an "implementation"
behind the 'abstract data model'/'framework'. In that sense, I am not sure
if this is an 'alternate model' but more of a data model for an implementation
that can sit behind the abstract data model (and thus accessible through
the framework).
-Raj
"Jim Sermersheim"
<jimse@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
04/05/2006 02:45 AM
|
Please respond to
"Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| [higgins-dev] Alt data model proposal
(was Higgins data model) |
|
As an alternate to http://spwiki.editme.com/DataModelProposal,
I added http://spwiki.editme.com/DataModelProposalAlternativeOne.
I divorced it from JNDI to keep the discussion focused
on data model rather than interfaces, though JNDI is mentioned a few times
as a reference example of an interface.
I did this for two reasons:
1) If it turns out that this (or a very similar) model
fits our goals, it may be preferable to adopt it rather than rolling our
own.
2) If we decide not to adopt it, we should document good
reasons why not - the question will be repeated.
Jim
>>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
3/24/06 2:08:01 pm >>>
Task H6-03-24 of the Milestone
0.4 plan (http://spwiki.editme.com/PlanM4)
is about "refining the Higgins data model". To support that work
we've begun creating listing our goals (http://spwiki.editme.com/DataModelGoalsM4
(this can be linked to from the main Higgins wiki page http://spwiki.editme.com/Higgins).
Let me kick this off with a question:
It has been suggested that instead
of creating our own model, we might take a look at using all or some of
JNDI. Could someone explain how one best use JNDI to support our notion
of "IdFacet Relationships" (see "IdFacet Relationships"
(currently item 9,10,11) here: http://spwiki.editme.com/DataModelGoalsM4)?
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
