[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [higgins-dev] Higgins.owl and HigginsLDAP.owl open issues
|
Yes, at the very least, resolving the second category could provide a _generic_ strategy for turning LDAP schema into a Higgins based OWL ontology (actually into any OWL ontology). Indeed, it could also result in reusable code for dynamically generating a Higgins based OWL ontology. However, I'm still worried about properly and\or adequately expressing LDAP schema constraints in the OWL language. It seems promising but this worry is why I'm anxious to get some of these little (partially ancillary to Higgins) issues resolved so I can move on through the deeper LDAP ones with Mark, Jim, and other parties interested in supporting LDAP through the Higgins framework. The two big ones I'm looking for feedback on I've detailed a couple of times ("& and Protégé" and "OID equivalency definitions as well as #") so any help there would be appreciated.
-Tom
>>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 9/24/2006 5:39 PM >>>
Tom/all,
After reviewing the schema/ontology-related messages on this dev list and
looking for open issues. I see that they roughly fall into two categories.
The first are directly related to higgins.owl. I have summarized them here
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Data_Model_Open_Issues.
The second category are issues related to your work on creating
HigginsLDAP.owl that, if I understand correctly, could provide a reusable
_generic_ ontology for Context Providers that connect to LDAP repositories
each of which uses a _specific_ LDAP schema. These specific LDAP schemas
would be expressed in OWL that imports HigginsLDAP. This HigginsLDAP.owl
imports higgins.owl and is thus related to it, but HigginsLDAP.owl
introduces a number of issues that are specific to the LDAP domain.
-Paul
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
