[higgins-dev] Notes from higgins-dev call Thursday October 26 12-1pm ET

["Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

1. Attendees
---------
DeiterS, JeffreyBroberg(ComputerAssociates), MikeM, MaryR, HeatherH, TomD,
ValeryK, PaulT, JimS, RajN, DuaneB


2. Review last week's action items
----------------------------------
- Valery did commit schema interface
- Jim: plans to review; Valery: will be better to see impl than interface
- Paul: did add domain decls to complex/simpleMetadata
- Valery: working on nightly builds, started to run some of them on eclipse
build server
- Mary: Jena licensing new IpZilla system for requesting legal approval, has
been submitted (has gotten a +1 form Bjorn, so beginning the long journey)
- Greg: registry code

3. Deiter Sommer (IBM)
- walked us through this page
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Relying_Party_Security_Policy  
- Jim asked if existing standards could support alternatives in what the
relying party would accept. Jan said that existing standards could not
support it.
- Tom: could you explain the fourth predicate
- Paul: would like it to embrace non-auth related

4. Open IdAS Issues
--------------------
- JimS: there are still more work with the filters, but let's not discuss
that here
- Tom: the focus has been getting a demo app together, has been looking at
MikeM's STS; but let's talk about the "other" class issue...
- Tom: in some identity stores (e.g. LDAP). Some don't follow x500 and say
that an entry is one of more than one type. Also LDAP has auxiliary class.
E.g. the Tom object is an organization, it is derived from another set of
classes (e.g. from Person and person from Top). They can add an aux class
that says that I'm a manager that adds another set of attributes. So what
should IdAS say is the type of the object? Do we need to change the IdAS
interface to getTypes() (plural). 
- Paul: is this like multiple inheritance?
- Jim: kind of, but at runtime
- Tom: all the type information is listed on each entry
- Jim: one solution: leave getType() as is (the most specific type), for
cases where people want to see the type hierarchy (like LDAP), but then have
another method to retrieve the other classe, though this is probably only
useful for LDAP getAux classes
- Raj: we need to walk through a use case: is it a type of DigitalSubject or
is it an attribute; are we mixing things up?
- Jim: in my mind it is more like a type; the addition of one of these
runtime (aux) types, does change the behavior. It is as if you did this in
the schema.
- Raj: we need to work through it, so that we know it is a type
- Tom: in LDAP the way it is now, I'm generating OWL for the aux classes as
well. It seems to make sense that getTypes() and return them all (some may
be aux classes). 
- Raj: do we need a person type, group type, organization type, etc.
- Jim: customer may be a person, but it may also be an entity; thus you
don't want to build a hierarchy
- Raj: we need to walk thru scenarios
- Tom: yeah, it would be good to have examples
- Jim: okay here's an example: we have a class called vertebrate and we have
a class ocean-dweller; 
- Jim: seems useful to break apart the super-types vs. the runtime
associated types
- Jim: also we should think about OWL equivalent class...
- Tom: the second kind of getType method could list types *other* than what
can be inferred

5. Next Higgins F2F on Nov13th
- Mary: Raj do you know if IBM could still offer an IBM building in Boston?
- Raj: will investigate

6. Update on OSP
- Mary: Eclipse legal is reviewing the Higgins response to the MS OSP

7. Misc
- Jim: suggested revising the architecture diagram to identify which
components could be plugged into the MS architecture. Paul will get more
details from Jim offline.
- Jim: Request to Paul to add a new kind of bullet to the component
deliverables wiki page, namely the PSF file to get the component