Re: [higgins-dev] Common Datatype Properties

["Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

BTW, the Postal Address example we've been working with is a good one.  LDAP has a postalAddress syntax that would map fairly well onto that example.  My question is, do we intend to define a wide set of types in the spirit of that example?

Tom

>>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 9/18/2006 11:42 AM >>>
Paul,

Could you bring the attached ontology up in your OWL editor and tell me if it loads all right?  I still can't bring it up in Protégé.  Note that it imports the higgins ontology from a location on my C: drive.

All,

In continuing to work on more examples from LDAP, I was wondering what our strategy is as far as creating common datatype properties.  In LDAP, there are many syntaxes that could be represented in OWL.  However, most of these values have a string representation that could be used.  For IdAS consumers, this would put the onus on them to know how to pick these apart.  On the other hand, we put quite a task on ourselves to represent LDAP as well as other data source syntaxes in a common way.  Perhaps this would be part of the charter of the schemas group if we can get one created, but what would you all suggest we do in the interim?

In the attached example, so far, I've simply punted on the syntax to datatype question by kowtowing to the fact that most LDAP attributes have string representations.  So, for the time being, the consumers of my LDAP provider through IdAS will have to pick them apart based on knowledge of LDAP syntaxes.  Certainly seems like the wrong way to go.  Suggestions?

Thanks,
Tom