[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: Re[2]: [higgins-dev] IdAS notes

Great!

________________________________________
From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 12:57 PM
To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [higgins-dev] IdAS notes

It doesn't seem like it should be a problem.  I'll take a look at it.  I do
like the consistency it would bring.

>>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 5/25/07 10:20 AM >>>
Jim, is it a lot of work and/or complexity to allow Contexts (what in HOWL
are called ContextObjects) to have attributes? If not, I think it would be
good. 

If so, it would allow how HOWL handles ContextRelationships to be made
completely consistent with how a SubjectRelationship works on DSes --namely
a kind of higgins:Value (what, at the IdAS level is called an attribute).

-Paul

________________________________________
From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:44 AM
To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [higgins-dev] IdAS notes

Ok, so we do have context relationships right now, but we don't have the
notion of context attributes.

Should we add the notion that an IContext contains IAttributes?

Jim


>>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 5/25/07 6:35 AM >>>
Valery is right. We need Context relationships. And these are attributes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Valery Kokhan
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:05 AM
> To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
> Subject: Re[2]: [higgins-dev] IdAS notes
> 
> Jim,
> 
> Actually, when I worked on those interfaces, my understanding was that
> context itself could contains attributes which could be useful when we
> need to customize/describe entire context. As for me, context
> relationships could be considered as good example of such kind of
> attributes.
> 
> If I alone with such understanding it would be better to remove this
> method from IContextModel then to consider it as a convenient way of
> ask for a list of all attributes.
> 
> 
> Valery
> 
> Friday, May 25, 2007, 1:34:06 AM, you wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Sergey,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm working through these and I noticed something.  IContextModel
> > has a getAttributes method.  Do you (or anyone) know what that's
> > for?  A context doesn't have attributes.
> >
> >
> >
> > If it's a convenient way of asking for a list of all attributes
> > valid for all subject types allowed by this context, then it seems
> > we should also add getMetadataSet to IContextModel as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim
> >
> 
> 
> >>>> "Sergey Lyakhov" <slyakhov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 5/24/07 11:49 AM >>>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition:
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. We need to add two methods int getMinCardinality() and int
> > getMaxCardinality() to IAttributeModel interface.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sergey Lyakhov
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Sergey Lyakhov
> >
> > To: higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:44 PM
> >
> > Subject: [higgins-dev] IdAS notes
> >
> 
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> >
> >
> > I have some notes about IdAS:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. I suppose IMetadataModel interface should extend
> > IModel interface (to inherit IDisplayData getDisplayData() method);
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. We need to add two methods getMetadataSet() and getMetadata(URI)
> > to IDigitalSubjectModel, IAttributeModel and IAttributeValueModel;
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. IAttributeValueModel interface declares some methods
> > (isValidValue(Object valueForm), isValid(String lexicalForm),
> > toValueForm(String lexicalForm) and toLexicalForm(Object value))
> > which are not reqiured by IAttributeComplexValueModel. I proprose to
> > move these methods from IAttributeValueModel to
> IAttributeSimpleValueModel;
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. There are some classes which contain wrong HOWL URIs (at least
> > wrong base URI - AuthNNamePasswordMaterials,
> > AuthNSelfIssuedMaterials etc.). Pershaps we need some class which
> will contain HOWL URIs constants.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sergey Lyakhov
> >
> >
> 
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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