Re: [higgins-dev] schema updates in IdAS (was Re: IdAS API and Higgins o

["Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Valery Kokhan <vkokhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/18/06 2:57 PM >>>
>Thanks Jim!
>
>I think that behavior of setSchema() method is responsibility of context
>providers - in some cases they may try to add new schema to existing one
>while in others they may replace it. In case of our context provider
>we're going to allow set up context's schema only once (when it
>doesn't set yet) and all other attempts will throws an exception.

I prefer to have some specific rules documented so IdAS consumers know what to expect.  On the other hand, a method like setSchema() as it is today, is not conducive to making specific and reasonable schema updates (such as adding a new attribute definition and allowing it to be placed on some different kinds of subjects).

>Actually, I want to discuss one more thing related to IdAS and
>context's schemas.

<snip>
 
I actually got two points from your message:

1) (what you intended) Schema as a giant string is fairly useless to most IdAS consumers.
2) (what I initially thought you were getting at) There is no mechanism in the schema that restricts people from adding *any* kind of digital subject, or from adding *any* attribute to a digital subject.

On #1, I agree. I've also been thinking it would be more useful from the IdAS consumer point of view to return schema as lists of subject definitions, attribute definitions, etc.  If you already have interface proposals let's take a look.

On #2, Tom asked Paul about this some time back, but I don't think we resolved anything. In practice, we're doing it like you -- we restrict allowed subjects to be those listed in our OWL and restrict attributes on them to those specifically named as being in their domain.

Jim