|
ok, well there doesn't seem to be a swelling interest in determining an authoritative data model source. I guess these emails will be come that for now.
I'll spawn new threads for the different topics we're discussing in hopes that we can progress.
Jim
>>> "Tom Doman" <tdoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 01/14/08 10:29 AM >>>
It's possible they'll each be constrained or shaped by the other. If for no other reason, necessity.
At any rate, yes, let's get some consensus on this and make some progress refining things! Let's at least make a list of the contentious points.
Tom
>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 01/11/08 11:34 AM >>>
Before addressing all three model threads recently spawned, I'm interested in understanding what defines the Higgins Data Model we use in IdAS and HOWL.
Do we define HOWL, and expect IdAS to follow? I know we don't intend to start with IdAS and make HOWL conform (though it has happened). Or do we have a conceptual data model which is not formalized in any modeling language from which we try to make both HOWL and IdAS conform?
So far, I've believed the latter. And that where we do this is starting with the Higgins Data Model ( http://wiki.eclipse.org/Higgins_Data_Model ) page. From there, we define what is a Context ( http://wiki.eclipse.org/Context ), Digital Subject ( http://wiki.eclipse.org/Digital_Subject ), and Attribute ( http://wiki.eclipse.org/Identity_Attribute ). On the Attribute wiki, we talk about the fact that:
- an Attribute has 1..N values.
- value types are XML- Schema literals or complex (I'm unclear on whether we consider xsd:anyType as a literal)
- values are unique. (Note that determining uniqueness across disparate types would add complexity)
Anyway, before we dive deeper, can anyone (I'm thinking Paul) provide clarity on what's authoritative?
Jim
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
|
