[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [higgins-dev] Questions wrt HOWL 1.1
|
Tom, the IdSchemas work, and specifically its "Community Dictionary Service"
(CDS) project, has been quiet for awhile as the respective communities
involved have pushed forward until they are ready to integrate shared,
interoperable semantics. I think we're getting closer -- I can speak for the
OASIS XDI Technical Committee that it is, and it is looking forward to
working on the CDS again this fall.
=Drummond
> -----Original Message-----
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Doman
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: 'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions'
> Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Questions wrt HOWL 1.1
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
