Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [higgins-dev] JNDI Context Provider and HOWL 1.1

Actually, I wonder how many of our Higgins CPs conform to HOWL 1.1.
Perhaps the work Jim did w/ IdAS to reflect the changes for HOWL 1.1
was most of the work and all that remains are some mapping issues etc.
At any rate, we should enter defects where appropriate and I can plan
it
into my workload.

BTW, if it's just mapping, that's totally up to the deployer ATM. 
Those
mappings are only examples used for CardSpace deployments.

FWIW, I will be out of town for a week after tomorrow, so if this
results
in a critical issue, we'll need to see if someone else can address it.

Thanks,
Tom

>>> Rajalakshmi S Iyer <iyer_rajalakshmi@xxxxxxxxxx> 07/08/08 12:46 PM
>>> 
It appears that the JNDI context provider in Higgins 1.1 M2 still
follows
HOWL 1.0. What are the tasks involved in making it conform to HOWL
1.1?

Thanks,
Best regards,
Rajalakshmi Iyer




                                                                       
   
             Paul Trevithick                                           
   
             <paul@socialphysi                                         
   
             cs.org>                                                   
To 
             Sent by:                  higgins-dev                     
   
             higgins-dev-bounc         <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>       
   
             es@xxxxxxxxxxx                                            
cc 
                                                                       
   
                                                                  
Subject 
             07/08/2008 07:47          Re: [higgins-dev] Questions wrt 
   
             AM                        HOWL 1.1                        
   
                                                                       
   
                                                                       
   
             Please respond to                                         
   
             "Higgins \(Trust                                          
   
                Framework\)                                            
   
             Project developer                                         
   
               discussions"                                            
   
             <higgins-dev@ecli                                         
   
                 pse.org>                                              
   
                                                                       
   
                                                                       
   




Hi Rajalakshmi,

See inline below...

On 7/7/08 1:54 AM, "Rajalakshmi S Iyer" <iyer_rajalakshmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

      Hi,

      I have been going through HOWL 1.1 and here are some questions
wrt
      the
      same:

         HOWL 1.1 defines new OWL classes like Person, Group etc. Is
it
      necessary
         that context providers who conform to HOWL must derive their
         implementations of Persons and Groups from the HOWL 1.1 Person
and
         Group?

      >> Yes they should.

      And if so, does it mean that one could query for persons using
        
http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/ontologies/2008/6/higgins#Person
      across
         all context providers?

      >>Yes.

         HOWL 1.1 does not seem to have the Attribute class that was
      present in
         HOWL 1.0.

      >> Perhaps you are referring to the higgins:attribute property
that
      was present in HOWL 1.0 and was removed in HOWL 1.1. If so, this
was
      done to allow developers to reuse existing properties from other
      (non-Higgins) OWL, and RDFS vocabularies. The higgins:attribute
was
      used as the abstract super-property of all higgins-defined
      properties*but it was never used directly.

      As I understood the CDM, all entities in the context must be
         subClassOf &higgins;#Entity and all attributes must be a
      subPropertyOf

         &higgins;#Attribute. Does this still hold?

      >> The first half of what you say holds: all developer-defined
      Entities must subclass Entity (or one of its subclasses (e.g
Agent,
      Person, Group or Organization and soon Policy). The second part
is no
      longer true *there*s now nothing special about a higgins
property
      (e.g. higgins:correation) vs. a property from some other
namespace
      (e.g. foaf:knows).

      Thanks,
      Best regards,
      Rajalakshmi Iyer

      _______________________________________________
      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