From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006
5:15 PM
To: Higgins
(Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
Cc:
Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [higgins-dev]
Proposed Version 1: Higgins based
LDAP OWL ontology
So is the intent for this to become part of Higgins ? or is this something that Higgins would have to pick up from Bandit ?
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
"Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
"Tom
Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:
higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/29/2006 03:49 PM
|
Please respond to
"Higgins (Trust Framework)
Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
|
To
|
<higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
[higgins-dev]
Proposed Version 1: Higgins
based LDAP OWL ontology
|
|
Attached
is what we (Jim and I) are proposing a Higgins
based LDAP OWL ontology would look like. At least, we believe this is
complete enough to call "version 1". Again, this is generated
OWL from our Bandit Higgins LDAP
Context Provider. Please review and provide any feedback you have.
Jim and I have come to agreement and hopefully this is in line with
"Person" example Paul is coming out with today. If not, we'll
tweak it accordingly.
The biggest change between this and any previous
version (ie. testLDAP.owl) you may have seen is the inclusion of Datatype
properties that represent LDAP syntaxes and their subsequent linkage with
attributes. Currently, they all end up being simple data types but this
work will allow us to create complex data types for either LDAP context
specific or Higgins common complex
types. It also causes the LDAP syntaxes used for each attribute value to
be explicitly called out. SemanticWorks provides a nice graphical view of
what we've defined.
Besides the two small items I mentioned earlier,
there is one additional reason the attached ontology is not OWL-DL, namely, no
"&higgins;integerSimpleValue". I believe Paul's adding
definitions for at least the basic types soon.
I'll wait for a little feedback from Higgins participants and then I'll propose this to
the Identity Schemas group for them to tear apart.
Tom Doman
Novell Inc.
(See attached file: genHigginsLDAP0.1.0.owl)_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
