> 3. Jim Sermersheim invented IFilter because we needed
something and SPARQL wasnt yet established. Now that it is, I wonder if we
shouldnt give it another look
It would be very
convinient to use SPARQL for RDF-based context providers (like jena CP).
However it would be hard to implement all aspects of SPARQL for context
providers which are not based on RDF (JNDI, XML, Hibernate
etc.).
> When you go
to make these changes, it will be critical to load into your workbench every
possible context
> provider that
you can find so that you can fix them so that they dont all
break.
It will take a lot of work to implement new
filter/model for all providers. So, I suppose there is a sence to put new
IdAS interfaces into a new project (like
org.eclipse.higgins.idas.api2) and than fix all providers to support these
new interfaces. What do you think about this?
Thanks, Sergey Lyakhov
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 3:11
AM
Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] IdAS changes
proposal
Sergey,
My responses:
- agree
- agree
- Jim Sermersheim
invented IFilter because we needed something and SPARQL wasnt yet
established. Now that it is, I wonder if we shouldnt give it another look
- (4.1): short
answer: no. Longer answer: cdm.owl is an attempt to approximate in owl
concepts that cannot be directly operationalized in real RDF/OWL based
systems. Only higgins.owl should be imported and used. Cdm.owl is just an
attempt at explanation. It can be ignored. (4.2) A lot of OWL URLS end in
.owl, but it isnt a firm requirement or
convention.
When you go to make these changes, it will be
critical to load into your workbench every possible context provider that you
can find so that you can fix them so that they dont all break.
--Paul
On 9/23/09 12:07 PM, "Sergey Lyakhov" <slyakhov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Paul,
I suppose, cdm:entityId is redundant and we can use rdf:ID
instead. As a result:
1.1. In this case IEntity.getEntityID() will retun
rdf:ID. 1.2. In case of blank entity (previously known as a complex
value) it should return null. 1.3. entityId attribute will be
eliminated.
I suppose we need to do the following changes to IdAS interfaces
to be compatible with CDM:
2.1. BlankEntity class has
been eliminated from cdm.owl. So, I suppose we need to do the same for IdAS
interfaces and replace IBlankEntity with IEntity (eliminate IBlankEntity
interface). Because there is no any difference between entity
and complex value, we can define the following:
2.2. If Entity has been
created by IContext.addEntity(entityType, entityID) method, it should always
have entityID (should not be a blank entity). In other words, a unique value
should be generated by a context and used as entityId, if no entityId
passed. 2.3. If Entity has been created by IAttribute.addValue(URI)
method, it should be a blank entity. 2.4. If Entity has been added by
IAttribute.addValue(IAttributeValue) it should be the same type as passed
entity. If passed entity is a blank entity, new blank entity should be
created as a copy of passed, otherwise a reference to the existent (non
blank) entity should be created. 2.5. When Entity is deleted, all its
subentities which are a blank entity should be deleted
too. Also we need more flex IFilter API: 3.1.
IFilter should be able to query both types of entities as blank as
usual. 3.2. IFilter should be able to query a separate value (entity or
simple value) of any nesting level, not only direct attributes of
Entity. Also I have some notes about CDM: 4.1.
CDM.owl contains entityRelation and contextRelation object properties. Do we
need to reflect them in IdAS interfaces? 4.2. Namespase of cdm.owl http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/ontologies/2008/6/cdm.owl
ends with .owl. Is it correct?
Thanks, Sergey
Lyakhov
_______________________________________________ higgins-dev mailing
list higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
|