Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [higgins-dev] Change to IDigitalSubject

This sounds good. The core reason for confusion w terms Resource , Subject and inheritance are cleared out. Thanks for factoring in the comments, and helping out w the changes that balances Java API design, and naming and its implied semantics.

Thanks
Raj


Inactive hide details for "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx>"Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx>


          "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx>
          Sent by: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

          09/20/2006 05:18 PM

          Please respond to
          "Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To

"Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

cc


Subject

Re: [higgins-dev] Change to IDigitalSubject

I started from scratch. The results may be seen at http://forgeftp.novell.com//bandit/HigginsIDASJavadoc/

IDigitalSubject now is just like it used to be in the sense that it doesn't derive from any interfaces meant to be used on their own (it does extend IHasRelationships, IHasMetadata, and IHasAttributes). It again is the only thing that has a "name" (and that has been reset back to uniqueIdentifier as it was originally).

There is an interface caled IPropertyValue (this is actually a week or so old). It has two sub-interfaces: ISimpleValue, and IComplexValue. IComplexValue has attributes so it also extends IHasAttributes.

As far as basic impl's go, there is a BasicSimpleValue, BasicComplexValue, and one extension of BasicSimpleValue for each simple XML datatype used in OWL.

(re)starting from there, what should we do to clarify/improve things?

Jim

>>> Nataraj Nagaratnam <natarajn@xxxxxxxxxx> 9/20/06 12:58 PM >>>

I still do not understand the introduction of IResource either (assuming IEntity is planning to be removed)

Original intent was that

    • There are entities in real world (not modeled). Examples are users, organizations, devices, systems, etc
    • An entity can have multiple identities, such that a given identity is scoped to a context
    • It is the digital representation of that identity that we would be working with
    • Original plan was to call that DigitalIdentity - both the attribute representation (that is stored/managed), as well as the representation during an interaction with a relying party. Then we decided to stick with DI to represent claims.. and thus its role in the interaction aspects; and DigitalSubject to represent the digital representation of an entity in the context of its attributes
    • Types of entities would be represented as typed DigitalSubjects - I was assuming we will have UserSubject, DeviceSubject, etc.


>From that notes and proposed changes, it looks like we are introducing IResource; are we then treating DigitalSubject to only represent user types? Why? If we really want to use the term Subject to represent user types, then I would rather introduce DigitalIdentity as the super type (to represent the reflection of attributes; as well as claims), than introduce a Resource as the higher level abstraction.

Thanks
Raj

Greg Byrd <gbyrd@xxxxxxxx>

                  Greg Byrd <gbyrd@xxxxxxxx>
                  Sent by: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

                  09/20/2006 01:38 PM

Please respond to
"Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To

"Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject

Re: [higgins-dev] Change to IDigitalSubject

It's just a suggestion.  I'll be happy to hear input from others.

If, however, IResource is meant to encapsulate a resource in the RDF
sense, then it makes sense to me that IDigitalSubject is a specific type
of resource.  In other words, a DS will always be a resource in the RDF
sense.  So if we're exposing the notion of RDF resource through the API,
then it's consistent to view IDigitalSubject that way.

Just to play Devil's advocate -- if we're exposing RDF notions in the
API, why not use Jena or some other API instead of inventing our own.  
They already have Resource, Literal, etc.  (The practical answer might
be that it takes too long to get permission from Eclipse to include
third-party code...)

...Greg


Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> We can do it that way. I was hesitant to do that because I didn't know
> where IResource might differ from IDigitalSubject in the future.
>  
> I'll change it to follow your suggestion, and we can deal with
> divergence of IResource if/when that ever happens.
>  
> Jim
>
> >>> Greg Byrd <gbyrd@xxxxxxxx> 9/20/06 7:11 AM >>>
>
> So how about making IDigitalSubject a sub-interface of IResource?   I
> don't see the need for another interface type that has no other uses,
> and IResource doesn't add anything to IEntity anyway, except for also
> implementing IHasMetadata.
>
> ...Greg
>
>
> Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> > Oops, we were talking about it on the #higgins chat channel, and I
> > forgot it wasn't discussed here.
> >
> > Well, not much of a debate. I added IResource and ILiteral interfaces
> > sometime back (for attribute value types).  Today I finally got around
> > to fleshing out IResource and noticed for the second time that it's
> > almost exactly like IDigitalSubject (just doesn't have a Context). So
> > rather that duplicating the APIs having to do with attributes, name,
> > and type, I proposed a super-interface for tha t.
> >
> > We debated between IObject and IEntity.  I'm open to other names or
> > solutions if they're better.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > >>> Greg Byrd <gbyrd@xxxxxxxx> 9/19/06 6:32 PM >>>
> >
> > So I missed this debate -- what's the reason for the change to IEntity?
> >
> > ...Greg
> >
> >
> > Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> > > For all you context provider writers out there, I forgot to tell you
> > > that as part of the creation of the more generic IEntity, the method
> > > name changed (was IDigitalSubject.getUniqueID, is now
> > > IEntity.getName). In terms of its use on IDigitalSubject, it's still
> > > the Contextually Unique Identifier. I suppose that's true for its use
> > > on IResource as well.  Hmm, maybe I should have left the name
> > > alone...  Opinions?
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> >
> > _ ______________________________________________
> > higgins-dev mailing list
> > higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > higgins-dev mailing list
> > higgins-dev@eclipseorg
> >
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
> >  
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>  

_______________________________________________
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

GIF image

GIF image

GIF image

GIF image


Back to the top