|
From Paul's last email on the subject of "Question wrt HOWL 1.1", the JNDI provider needs to show that all entity types subclass the higgins Entity type.
We also need more work in IdAS. For example, we need to be able to express the notion of subtypes.
Jim
>>> "Tom Doman" <tdoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 07/09/08 5:37 PM >>>
Actually, I wonder how many of our Higgins CPs conform to HOWL 1.1.
Perhaps the work Jim did w/ IdAS to reflect the changes for HOWL 1.1
was most of the work and all that remains are some mapping issues etc.
At any rate, we should enter defects where appropriate and I can plan
it
into my workload.
BTW, if it's just mapping, that's totally up to the deployer ATM.
Those
mappings are only examples used for CardSpace deployments.
FWIW, I will be out of town for a week after tomorrow, so if this
results
in a critical issue, we'll need to see if someone else can address it.
Thanks,
Tom
>>> Rajalakshmi S Iyer <iyer_rajalakshmi@xxxxxxxxxx> 07/08/08 12:46 PM
>>>
It appears that the JNDI context provider in Higgins 1.1 M2 still
follows
HOWL 1.0. What are the tasks involved in making it conform to HOWL
1.1?
Thanks,
Best regards,
Rajalakshmi Iyer
Paul Trevithick
<paul@socialphysi
cs.org>
To
Sent by: higgins-dev
higgins-dev-bounc <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
es@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
07/08/2008 07:47 Re: [higgins-dev] Questions wrt
AM HOWL 1.1
Please respond to
"Higgins \(Trust
Framework\)
Project developer
discussions"
<higgins-dev@ecli
pse.org>
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
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
|
