RE: [higgins-dev] Questions wrt HOWL 1.1

["Tom Doman" <tdoman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Indeed, it was the benefit of improved interoperability through shared semantics that prompted the creation of the IdSchemas group as a spin-off of the Higgins discussions in this area.  Should things like Higgins Person be proposed as an IdSchemas "standard" or is Paul proposing we participate in the myontology effort in that way?  I think that's the underlying question for me, what's the plan WRT schemas?

Tom
 
>>> "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 07/09/08 11:47 PM >>> 
Good point, and maybe worth discussing on the call tomorrow (if there's
time). It strikes me that, like almost all things in vocabulary, you can
never force semantic bindings. If someone wants to derive their own notion
of Person from Entity, you can't stop them. So it's only if they want shared
semantics that they would be incented to derive from Higgins Person.

 

=Drummond 

  _____  

From: higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:29 PM
To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'
Subject: RE: [higgins- dev] Questions wrt HOWL 1.1

 

I was thinking it meant that too until I read: 

>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. 

 

Maybe that's not actually saying anything more than what you just said. 

 

Still isn't it overly prescriptive to say that everyone's notion of a person
and group must adhere to the higgins notion (or a subtype thereof)? 



>>> "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 07/09/08 11:11 PM >>>

 

Jim, I am not the HOWL expert at all, but my understanding of what Paul is
saying is that a CP only need to support (i.e., use or extend) the HOWL
notion of Person or Group if it needs to represent people or groups. So a CP
that only exposes hardware or software resources might only need Entities
and Attributes. 

 

  

 

=Drummond 

 

  

  _____  

 

From: 

higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins- dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] 

On Behalf Of 

Jim Sermersheim

Sent: 

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 9:56 PM

To: 

higgins- dev

Subject: 

Re: [higgins- dev] Questions wrt HOWL 1.1 

 

  

 

Does anyone else find this a bit overbearing?  Why do we want to prescribe
that all CP's support our notion of a Person and Group?  Shouldn't we have
different profiles for different kinds of CPs? 

 

  

 

If I deploy a CP that only exposes hardware resource, or software resources,
why should it need to support a Person or Group? 



>>> Paul Trevithick <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 07/07/08 8:17 PM >>> 

 

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