Re: [higgins-dev] Re: Latest version of HOWL

[Paul Trevithick <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My motivations for including them:

1. To better support access control primitives that we're adding in HOWL.
For example, the concept of Groups (and Entities being members of them (see
that added attribute)) seemed fundamental to things like RBAC.

2. The more we can agree on and put into HOWL, the more interoperability we
will have. It is, of course, really hard to get agreement on adding anything
to HOWL. What's more, we don't have to get 100% consensus, because folks
could decide not to use these. But if 80% of folks agree, then including
them is a big win. OTOH folks can point out situations where even the
existence of these base terms will cause problems, then we will have to
remove these into a separate, optional ontology.

On 6/9/08 8:11 PM, "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>    
> 
>  Do we want Group, Organization, and Person to be part of the base HOWL?  Or
> should these be part of one (of possible many) other ontologies that are
> recommended for use by different contexts?
> 
>>>> Paul Trevithick <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 06/08/08 10:02 PM >>>
>     
>  
>  
> 
>  Jim,
> 
> You wanted to know when I had some more doc for HOWL so you¹ll be happy to
> know that I just uploaded some HTML doc pages to this page
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/HOWL_1.1
> 
> -Paul 
>  
>