Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [higgins-dev] Two bug fixes to HOWL(higgins.owl)[nonbreakingchange] 

Sergei wrote:
> 
> > Both ComplexValue and SimpleValue are sub-classes of Value. By stating
> the
> > range as Value we allow both possibilities.
> 
> Of course, they both are sub-classes of Value. But SimpleValue can not
> have
> attributes (at least ISimpleValue interface doesn't extend IHasAttributes,
> because there is no any sence for SimpleValue to have attributes).

Let's start over here. You originally wrote:
   1. SimpleValue can not contain attributes (only ComplexValue can), so 
   it will be more correct to allow the range of higgins:attribute to be 
   ComplexValue, not Value.

In addition to cases where the range might be a ComplexValue, I can imagine
a higgins:attribute sub-property that has a range of SimpleValue. Here's
one: eyeColor. An instance of eyeColor would have a domain of <some DS> and
a range of higgins:String. (A higgins:String is a subclass of
higgins:SimpleValue). Thus I maintain that since a higgins:attribute's range
might be a ComplexValue and it might be a SimpleValue, then to allow either
one, it should be specified as Value, the superclass of both.

> 
> Also I have one question about metadata: let's suppose that we have
> attribute with 2 values and one metadata container (higgins:Attribute) as
> it
> was in your example. The question is - what should we do with metadata
> when
> both values were removed from attribute? Should we delete metadata when
> we
> remove last value of attribute?

Yes, I think what you propose is the correct convention. 

> 
> Thanks,
> Sergey Lyakhov
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'"
> <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:08 PM
> Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Two bug fixes to HOWL
> (higgins.owl)[nonbreakingchange]
> 
> 
> >
> > SergeyL wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> > 2) bug fix: allowed the range of higgins:attribute to be either
> >> > higgins:Value (as it was) or higgins:Attribute (new--this object is
> the
> >> > holder of metadata about the entire set of values (i.e. "ranges") of
> a
> >> set
> >> > of higgins:attributes
> >>
> >> 1. SimpleValue can not contain attributes (only ComplexValue can), so
> it
> >> will be more correct to allow the range of higgins:attribute to be
> >> ComplexValue, not Value.
> >
> > Both ComplexValue and SimpleValue are sub-classes of Value. By stating
> the
> > range as Value we allow both possibilities.
> >
> >>
> >> 2. Really higgins:attribute is a property of DS (or complex value) that
> >> contains higgins:Value (simple or complex). What sence is there for
> >> higgins:Attribute class to be the range of  higgins:attribute? Do you
> >> mean
> >> that we should use the same property to store as values of attribute as
> >> metadata of this attribute?
> >
> > All will become more clear as I work on some examples. But here is where
> > I'm
> > headed...
> >
> > The higgins:Attribute is a holder of metadata for a set of
> higgins:Values.
> >
> > Here is an example of its use: Consider foo:eyeColor to be a property of
> a
> > DS (a sub-property of higgins:attribute property). Imagine three
> instances
> > of this eyeColor property: two of them point to higgins:Values (e.g. two
> > higgins:Strings having associated literal values of "blue" and "green"
> > respectively), and the third points to a higgins:Attribute that holds
> > metadata about the set of Values. As a trivial example, this
> > higgins:Attribute could hold the metadata property "numberOfValues" and
> > have
> > a range/value of "2".
> >
> > Thus the metadata (numberOfValues = 2) is bound to the values
> > ("blue","green") as follows:
> >  * the relevant ObjectProperty instances (all three of them) have the
> same
> > URI (in our example, "foo:eyeColor)
> >  * we follow a convention that there is at most one higgins:Attribute
> > instance for a given higgins:attribute sub-property
> >
> > -Paul
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Sergey Lyakhov
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: "'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'"
> >> <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 6:01 PM
> >> Subject: [higgins-dev] Two bug fixes to HOWL (higgins.owl) [non
> >> breakingchange]
> >>
> >>
> >> > 1) bug fix: allowed the domain of higgins:attribute to be either
> >> > DigitalSubject (as it was) or ContextObject (new)
> >> >
> >> > 2) bug fix: allowed the range of higgins:attribute to be either
> >> > higgins:Value (as it was) or higgins:Attribute (new--this object is
> the
> >> > holder of metadata about the entire set of values (i.e. "ranges") of
> a
> >> set
> >> > of higgins:attributes
> >> >
> >> > Changes have been published here [1]
> >> >
> >> > [1] http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/ontologies/2006/higgins.owl
> >> >
> >> > -Paul
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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

Back to the top