Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [higgins-dev] Higgins data model for attribute values

Yes Greg thanks. And to Jim's point, I knew this had been discussed in the
past but don't remember any resolution.

higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/08/2008 11:32:57 AM:

> One point that Mike's bringing up (I think) is the difference
> between not having an attribute, and having an attribute without a
> value.  In the latter case, there's a definite statement that we
> have no knowledge of this particular attribute.  (If, for example,
> we know that a person has no driver's license.)  If the attribute is
> missing, we can't know whether it's because there is no such
> attribute for this subject, or whether we just don't know anything about
it.
>
> In OWL, I think you'd have to have an explicit value that means
> "unknown", because you have to have a value associated with a
> property.  This may or may not be represented in the same way in the
> IdAS model.
>
> ...Greg
>
>
>
>
> Michael McIntosh wrote:
> higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/04/2008 09:19:47 PM:
>
>
> Before addressing bug #190594, I need to know more about what the
> Higgins data model allows in an attribute's instance data.
>
> In IdAS, my understanding is that a Digital Subject may have 0..1
> occurrence of a particular Attribute, and that an Attribute may have
> 1..N occurrences of a particular type of Value.
>
>
> In the case of an Attribute X, I would like to better understand the
> semantic intended by the difference between the two cases where:
> a) there is 0 occurence of X,,
> b) there is 1 occurence of X with 0 values.
> Is there a difference? What is it?
>
> If this model changed to allow 0..N occurence of an Attribute, with 1
> occurence of Value for each Attribute, what would be the difference?
>
> If this model changed to allow 1 occurence of an Attribute, with 0..N
> occurence of Value for each Attribute, what would be the difference?
>
>
> It's my understanding that each of an Attribute's values must be of
> the same data type, but that restriction isn't obvious to me in the
> Higgins OWL, and in fact, the opposite is reflected in the IdAS
> APIs.  In IdAS, one can state the data type of each value they add
> to an attribute.
>
> So, we need to agree on the Higgins data model regarding the types
> of attribute values.  Should the Higgins data model dictate that
> they all be of the same type, or should it allow their types to be mixed?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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