Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: Fwd: [higgins-dev] Higgins data model for attribute values

higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 01/08/2008 01:02:47 AM:

> That’s a reasonable use case, however I would argue that in that
> case the data type is xsd:any, and thus it still fits the rule that
> all values are of the same type.
> The same could be applied to Daniel’s telephone number example: the
> datatype is really “string-or-number”.

Forgive my lack of OWL/RDF-ese, but...

There seems to be a pretty significant difference between ...

      class StringOrNumber extends ByteArray {...}


      abstract class StringOrNumber {...}

      class String extends StringOrNumber {...}..}

      class Number extends StringOrNumber {...}..}

With the first option, once a value is created, the type of the original
String or Number is lost, perhaps in some cases you can examine the value
and decide whether "123" is intended to be a String or a Number (maybe not)
but this is error prone. Storing a typed value is much better in my

> =Drummond
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:25 PM
> To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [higgins-dev] Higgins data model for attribute values
> Thanks for the feedback, all.
> This is as I expected.  I have heard some use cases for allowing an
> attribute's values to be different data types -- similar to
> specifying that an element in an xml schema be of xsd:any type.  One
> case I remember that Daniel brought up was like:  What if I have an
> attribute which represents a telephone number and I want to allow
> different data types (strings as well as numbers) to be stored?
> Daniel or others can probably provide more compelling arguments.
> >>> "Markus Sabadello" <msabadello@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 01/07/08 1:38 PM >>>
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: Paul Trevithick <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> Date: January 7, 2008 3:13:12 PM EST
> To: "Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx >
> Cc: "Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] Higgins data model for attribute values
> Wrt the higgins data model all values must be of the same type.
> As for higgins.owl, I'm working on a rev that will address this and
> other related issues
> On Jan 7, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Good question, Jim. My assumption would have been that if an
> Attribute allows multiple values, they all would be of the same data
> type. Is there a use case for an Attribute having multiple values
> with different data types?
> =Drummond
> From:
> higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of
> Jim Sermersheim
> Sent:
> Friday, January 04, 2008 6:20 PM
> To:
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:
> [higgins-dev] Higgins data model for attribute values
> Before addressing bug #190594, I need to know more about what the
> Higgins data model allows in an attribute's instance data.
> In IdAS, my understanding is that a Digital Subject may have 0..1
> occurrence of a particular Attribute, and that an Attribute may have
> 1..N occurrences of a particular type of Value.
> It's my understanding that each of an Attribute's values must be of
> the same data type, but that restriction isn't obvious to me in the
> Higgins OWL, and in fact, the opposite is reflected in the IdAS
> APIs.  In IdAS, one can state the data type of each value they add
> to an attribute.
> So, we need to agree on the Higgins data model regarding the types
> of attribute values.  Should the Higgins data model dictate that
> they all be of the same type, or should it allow their types to be mixed?
> <ATT00001>
>  _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top