[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [higgins-dev] Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL ontology
|
Ah yes, thanks, I'll do that.
Tom
>>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/4/2006 4:08 PM >>>
As I mentioned on #higgins channel to Jim just now, at the least we'll have
to list the jar dependencies so folks can go get them.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Doman
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:13 PM
> To: higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Mark.Wahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [higgins-dev] Proposed Version 1: Higgins based LDAP OWL
> ontology
>
> Paul,
>
> Yeah, we're contributing our LDAP context provider to the Higgins project.
> I have a few bandit references in namespaces, etc. that I'll change and
> I'll pull the EPL comment block into my source files. Currently, my
> source is in the bandit CVS repository and I can maintain day-to-day
> changes there and have Jim make periodic updates to the code in the
> Higgins repository unless there is another place you'd like to have
> reference context provider implementations.
>
> Any other logistics we need to cover?
>
> -Tom
>
> >>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 10/1/2006 10:03 AM >>>
> I'll discuss this with my manager (Pat) and our DE (Dale), et. al. on
> Monday. I expect it'd be fine to be part of Higgins under EPL but at the
> very least, would be under Bandit as ... LGPL or GPL ... can't remember
> which we ended up with. Anyway, after we discuss it, I'll want to discuss
> logistics with you. For example, do we want an entire reference context
> provider implementation for LDAP under Higgins or just the LDAP ontology
> generator (which is behind my IContext.getSchema() implementation)?
>
> -Tom
>
> >>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 9/30/2006 7:26 AM >>>
> My personal hope is that this particular piece of work would be part of
> Higgins under EPL as a Novell IP contribution.
>
>
>
> -Paul
>
>
>
> _____
>
> 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
> Inactive hide details for "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>"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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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