| RE: [higgins-dev] Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL ontology |
|
Package is probably org.eclipse.higgins.idas.cp.<whatever>
>>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 10/4/06 3:20 PM >>> For example ... ;) What would you like the package name to be? org.higgins.cp.jndi? What would you like the namespace URL to be? http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/ontologies/2006/higgins/ldap#? What would you like URNs to look like? urn:higgins:idas:jndicp:config? BTW, note that my original thought was that this context provider could be used for any JNDI provider. I'm not certain this will be the case going forward but that's where the JNDI references come from. The namespace URL could include "jndi" as well if all JNDI provider are required to provide a schema in the same format. -Tom >>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 10/4/2006 3:12 PM >>> Paul, Yeah, we're contributing our LDAP context provider to the Higgins project. I have a few bandit references in namespaces, etc. that I'll change and I'll pull the EPL comment block into my source files. Currently, my source is in the bandit CVS repository and I can maintain day-to-day changes there and have Jim make periodic updates to the code in the Higgins repository unless there is another place you'd like to have reference context provider implementations. Any other logistics we need to cover? -Tom >>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 10/1/2006 10:03 AM >>> I'll discuss this with my manager (Pat) and our DE (Dale), et. al. on Monday. I expect it'd be fine to be part of Higgins under EPL but at the very least, would be under Bandit as ... LGPL or GPL ... can't remember which we ended up with. Anyway, after we discuss it, I'll want to discuss logistics with you. For example, do we want an entire reference context provider implementation for LDAP under Higgins or just the LDAP ontology generator (which is behind my IContext.getSchema() implementation)? -Tom >>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 9/30/2006 7:26 AM >>> My personal hope is that this particular piece of work would be part of Higgins under EPL as a Novell IP contribution. -Paul _____ From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:15 PM To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions Cc: Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx; higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL ontology So is the intent for this to become part of Higgins ? or is this something that Higgins would have to pick up from Bandit ? Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122 Inactive hide details for "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>"Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 09/29/2006 03:49 PM Please respond to "Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> To <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> cc Subject [higgins-dev] Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL ontology Attached is what we (Jim and I) are proposing a Higgins based LDAP OWL ontology would look like. At least, we believe this is complete enough to call "version 1". Again, this is generated OWL from our Bandit Higgins LDAP Context Provider. Please review and provide any feedback you have. Jim and I have come to agreement and hopefully this is in line with "Person" example Paul is coming out with today. If not, we'll tweak it accordingly. The biggest change between this and any previous version (ie. testLDAP.owl) you may have seen is the inclusion of Datatype properties that represent LDAP syntaxes and their subsequent linkage with attributes. Currently, they all end up being simple data types but this work will allow us to create complex data types for either LDAP context specific or Higgins common complex types. It also causes the LDAP syntaxes used for each attribute value to be explicitly called out. SemanticWorks provides a nice graphical view of what we've defined. Besides the two small items I mentioned earlier, there is one additional reason the attached ontology is not OWL-DL, namely, no "&higgins;integerSimpleValue". I believe Paul's adding definitions for at least the basic types soon. I'll wait for a little feedback from Higgins participants and then I'll propose this to the Identity Schemas group for them to tear apart. Tom Doman Novell Inc. (See attached file: genHigginsLDAP0.1.0.owl)_______________________________________________ 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 |