RE: [higgins-dev] Data Model (yet again)

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree, Node is a very bad term, nobody gets this

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

Nataraj Nagaratnam---02/21/2008 10:48:32 PM---Another point - though we had discussed the point in the past, increasingly when I present Higgins Data Model to developers and

From:	Nataraj Nagaratnam/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
To:	"Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:	"Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:	02/21/2008 10:48 PM
Subject:	RE: [higgins-dev] Data Model (yet again)

---

Another point - though we had discussed the point in the past, increasingly when I present Higgins Data Model to developers and customers - they give me a look when they look at the term "Node" ;-( 

Any chance we can revisit this again please? The term Node is too geeky, graph oriented. So a name that people can kind of understand would be a better choice - I haven't had any problems talking about 'entity' and audience get it and fits well with context, relationship, etc.

comments?

thanks
Raj

Anthony Nadalin---02/21/2008 09:38:08 PM---1. The data mode is an un-typed mode, (no sub-classes) makes you look at each instance to determine its type, this is not suita

Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

02/21/2008 09:34 PM

Please respond to
"Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	"'Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions'" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject	RE: [higgins-dev] Data Model (yet again)

1. The data mode is an un-typed mode, (no sub-classes) makes you look at each instance to determine its type, this is not suitable for data mining and creating graphs of the data charateristic. 

3. Yes

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

"Paul Trevithick" ---02/21/2008 04:26:08 PM---1. I don’t understand.

From:	"Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	"'Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions'" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	02/21/2008 04:26 PM
Subject:	RE: [higgins-dev] Data Model (yet again)

---

1. I don’t understand.

2. I was informed today on the call that I missed some emails on the higgins-dev list in the past week on that topic. From what folks on the call said: (a) they agree with you (b) apparently there is some rough consensus on what to do about it. I’ll learn more as I re-read the higgins-dev list.

3. Hmm. Let me see if I understand your issue…. Given Node (N1) that has two Node Relations emanating from it, e.g one pointing to N2 and another pointing to N3, then are you saying that we’re lacking a way to “tag” or otherwise distinguish between these two Node Relations? 


BTW, here are some other things that the data model is missing off the top of my head…

1. Access control policy _expression_: We agreed on the call today that we’ll schedule a dedicated call about this in the next week. I’ll send links to a proposal for a very rudimentary access control approach along with the meeting invites.

2. As discussed at the F2F in Provo: the ability for the model to express policy information at the IdAS/CP/data-model level that today can only be expressed by an STS. The use case that we want to support is a “recursive” case where someone layers IdAS over, say, an LDAP data store on the one hand (that’s easy), and context provider that is “fronting” an STS on the other hand. The problem is that the IdAS consumer can’t query for the STS’s policy. 

3. Other things… (e.g. how to declare Node classes as “closed”)…etc.

---

From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:54 PM
To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'
Subject: [higgins-dev] Data Model (yet again)

So I don't feel like we are quite there yet for several reasons:

1. This is a runtime data model, there are not yet any tools that can create the graphs that I think folks might need
2. There still is no direct way for one node to reference a specific attribute or specific type of attribute in a different context/node
3. When using relations there is now way to tell what relation we are really talking about

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122_______________________________________________
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(See attached file: pic26022.gif)_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev

Attachment: pic26022.gif
Description: GIF image