-----Original Message-----
From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006
2:33 AM
To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework)
Project developer discussions'
Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] URI's
in Higgins
Question about the second bullet under
"Technology" on the page below: It says "The values of the
attributes will be described in both normal language and OWL-DL". I'm
wondering about the meaning of "normal language".
I meant
"ordinary" language (e.g. English) for human consumers.
So far, in IdAS, we have at least two potentially different
value representations One described by OWL-DL, and one described as a
Java Class. As we port IdAS to other languages, that number would grow. If
we look beyond IdAS, some attributes will already have other data
representations (ASN.1, XML Schema, etc.)
To me, it seems like this Identity Attribute schema would
want to either
a) document only a single representation (OWL-DL for
example)
b) document all known representations (OWL-DL, ASN.1, XML
Schema, Java Class, etc.)
c) same as "a", but cite transformation
algorithms/rules used to map from one definition language to another
Yes. I had
thought of only doing a), but maybe that's not enough.
This gets at the original problem at hand. That is, how to
construct a Attribute (or metadata) type URI which conveys the name
("age", "title", etc.) as well a the datatype (String, Int,
{String, String, Int}, etc.).
Assuming
that this Identity Attribute is one that isn't already in higgins.owl (or
another .owl file from IdentitySchemas.org!), then this means that the Context
Provider must be defining its own schema (ontology) that contains at least this
one new property. It will return this ontology in its getSchema() impl. Let's
say that the Context Provider is being developed by Novell. At the top of the
ontology might be:
<rdf:RDF xml:base=http://www.novell.com/higgins/ontologies/2006/8 .>
Then somewhere in this file the Novell developer inserts:
1 <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="#foo">
2 <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#DigitalSubject"/>
3 <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;normalizedString"/>
4 </owl:DatatypeProperty>
On line 1 above they are declaring a new URI called "http://www.novell.com/higgins/ontologies/2006/8/foo". On line 3 they are defining that its value must be an XML schema "normalizedString". Note: Line 2 would be added only if indeed this was a new Identity Attribute of a Digital Subject.
p.s. Are Mark Wahl and others on this list, or should
messages related to this be cc'd somewhere?
>>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 7/31/06
8:45 PM >>>
I have
discussed this general attribute namespace problem with a bunch of folks over
the past few months. I found that there was general support for the idea of an
identity attribute namespace project. Especially if it could be community
co-created. I was even lucky enough to find some folks, like Mark Wahl and
others, who have volunteered to contribute to it. So we've started something
called Identity Schemas (http://identityschemas.org).
My hope is
that we could do the "carving out" project out in the open, on this
site. A kind of self-service notion. Anyone who needs to do some attribute name
mapping help themselves and do it there.
Jim wrote:
I like the idea of carving out a namespace which can be
used to organize things like metadata types, attribute types, etc. It would be
nice if the type had resolvable components such that the consumer can discover
exactly what type of object to expect back in the value.
>>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 7/28/06 2:48 PM
>>>
Guess I should have said Paul's examples are URLs, I'm talking URNs.
Anyway, shortened question, shall we recommend the "starting" URN and
best practice for defining for Higgins implementors?
Tom
>>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 7/28/2006 2:41 PM
>>>
I suppose this is yet another potential "whatever the Context Provider
implementations wanna do" area but ... I'll ask anyway.
I'm considering the URI's we're using for Metadata Items. Have we
prescribed a recommended namespace prefix for URI's in Higgins? Shall we
recommend following the W3C recommendation for Namespaces in XML
(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/)? urn:higgins:idas: ...?
Something else? Recommend nothing and hope for no collisions?
Paul put out some samples for Context Ref URIs on the wiki but I'm talking
about URI's which a re only meant for unique identification (as for Metadata
Items), not also potentially resolvable resources (such as an LDAP directory).
Tom
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev