[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [higgins-dev] What defines the Higgins data model?

Jim, I think there *is* interest in “determining an authoritative data model source”, and in fact in the whole topic. I for one am vitally interested, and would like to see constant improvement in the documentation of the Higgins data model, since it is essential to the success of Higgins as whole. I know Paul and Markus and I have a deep interest in the topic as I’ve been working with the two of them and others on the XDI TC to map Higgins data model to the XDI RDF data model (initially documented at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/25531/xdi-rdf-model-v7.pdf  -- better documentation coming soon). Doing a completely clean mapping is the easiest way to enable Higgins to speak XDI and vice versa. We plan to give a presentation at the F2F on this.

I talked to Paul earlier today and he apologized for being snowed under and said he would be getting to this thread as soon as he can.

In my own review of the http://wiki.eclipse.org/Higgins_Data_Model section of the Higgins wiki, I’ve found the typical situation with a fast-moving technical wiki: some pages are great, most are average, and some are just confusing deadwood. It’s often easier for a newcomer like me to see that – once you get “into the flow” of the wiki you tend to concentrate on the new stuff and ignore the older cruft.

So leading up to (and after) the F2F, I’d be happy to volunteer to help garden the http://wiki.eclipse.org/Higgins_Data_Model section of the wiki to see if we can’t turn it into accurate, up-to-date documentation of the current state of the data model and clear assessment of all open issues.


From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:00 PM
To: higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] What defines the Higgins data model?


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.



>>> "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.


>>> "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?


higgins-dev mailing list