|
ACS Home Related Links:
Advanced Campus Services |
Directory Services Project 1. Semantic Facilitator T (SM) status reports (15 min) schema db - extract, store, identify vendor/version SOM parameter specification - interactive SFA labels - dimensions & "length" objects, 100 limit on dimensions LSA/LSI Summary of Internet2 Session presentation (see page 2-3) 2. Status of research topics (Lei, Jijie...) (10 min) 3. Info on synergistic projects (15 min) SURA/NMI REU - (catalog: GSU, UAB, UAH, UFL, UVA, UMICH, TACC, USC) SURA/NMI GRID Georgia State Homeland Security 4. Experiment from last meeting (ref: pages 4-5) ( 5 min) g) Find reference set as intersection of <iPlanet, Novell, OpenLDAP, SecureWay>. Conduct clustering using this reference set as the "expert solution" to achieve. Compare to results of experiments b) [320 SOM variations] or c) [320++ SOM variations] which used a "universal vector." 4. Discussion (45 min) 5. Other Next meeting: Friday, October 3, 2003 - 3:00 - 4:30 pmDate: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:17:27 AM US/Eastern Subject: Internet2 Session: Oct 16, 2003 General idea of our 20/25 minutes: I.) Introduce, use scenario , focus on "monitoring, clustering, visualization" and pitch NSF ITR (3-5 minutes) II.) Show the tool (opportunity to weave in additional details on research, concept, approach, resources) a) Schema repository (2-3 minutes) list of schemas from database scroll to show Internet2 and other LDAPs pick one, show how we can select objectClasses to cluster b) SOM clustering (2-3 minutes) ideally, show ability to select different parameter values run SOM show resulting display c) Repeat with specification of specific "Person" objectclasses (2 minutes) essentially rerun but don't specify all objectClasses run SOM show resulting display and clustering around "Person" objectclasses d) Repeat for multiple directories iPlanet, Novell (2-3 minutes) select from database select all objectclasses run SOM, display "seam" where they match e) Demonstrate SFA (2-4 minutes) III.) Contacts and further info slide (web site, papers, etc) and some Q&A? Internet2 Fall Member meetingThursday October 16, 2003 8:45AM-10:00AM Track Session: Middleware Advanced Directory Services and ApplicationsMike Conlon, University of Florida Zachariah Garner, University of Alabama at Birmingham John-Paul Robinson, University of Alabama at Birmingham Chris Shaw, Georgia Institute of Technology Vijay Vaishnavi, Georgia State University Art Vandenberg, Georgia State University Mary Fran Yafchak, Southeastern University Research Association (SURA) As part of the NMI (NSF Middleware Initiative), NMI Integration Testbed sites have been evaluating and implementing enterprise middleware. Sites have leveraged this opportunity to advance their enterprise directory structure and to build new directory-enabled applications. Topics include: NMI Components Take on New Meaning . As use of the enterprise directory increases and diversifies, institutions are finding some NMI directory components even more valuable than before. "Practices in Groups," "Metadirectory Practices for Enterprise Directories in Higher Education," and the new "Enterprise Directory Implementation Roadmap" take on new meaning as the long term and "inter-realm" vision for the campus directory is realized. Enabling Applications to Use Enterprise Authentication . Work has been underway at UAB to develop a central, authoritative database and directory. The UAB LDAP schema overlaps strongly with the eduPerson and InetOrgPerson schemae and, along with the LDAP Recipe, are core components used in designing UAB's LDAP directory schema. As an NMI participant, UAB has successfully enabled applications such as Instant Messaging (jabber), download of university-licensed software, Oracle HR system login, Solaris/Linux logins, and some simple content-management systems like Bugzilla and PHP-website. UAB will explain their general approach and also some specific steps taken for applications. Promoting Semantic Interoperability of Metadata for Directories of the Future . A challenge in LDAP schema design and interoperability is better understanding of schema inter-relationships across organizations. Georgia State has received NSF funding to research an approach based on the proposition that monitoring, clustering, and visualization of cross-organizational metadata can help identify patterns of practice and lead to dynamic evolution of standards. A semantic facilitator tool is demonstrated that uses Self-Organizing Maps for clustering and viewing metadata, and implements a Stereoscopic Field Analyzer (SFA) to visualize directory objects in 3-dimensional, interactive space. Experiments: On Tuesday September 2, 2003, Vijay, Lei, Jijie, and Art talked about what experiments may be appropriate to our current state of work. We mentioned some possible candidates and agreed to continue thinking about this. The following comments are from Art's notes: We noted that "reference sets" was a potentially rich area for work (see Vijay's Aug 24 email attached). Experiments with human subjects (say, experts validating clustering or users using an interface a là Roussinov) would need Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Since the IRB process is being reviewed (and tightened up), we might need to adjust. We discussed the fact that simple heuristics may be "just as good" as SOM - i.e. is the clustering that results from SOM really just a reflection of inheritance? If so, heuristic algorithm that develops "inheritance tree" may be sufficient - just observe the resulting "branching nodes." The challenge with clustering of attributes' metadata is that the metadata is sparse: OID, NAME, SYNTAX, DESCRIPTION. And latter two are perhaps limited distinguishing factors (being "one of only several different values.") With that said, here are some possible experiments: a) repeat the 320 SOM experiment exactly. Confirm results b) Conduct the 320 SOM experiment, except using <Novell, OpenLDAP, SecureWay> objects. c) Conduct a) or b) but vary the domain of the 320 values (x, y, neighborhood size, iterations) d) SOM using attributes for <iPlanet, Novell, OpenLDAP, SecureWay>. e) Treat whole schema (thanks Susan Qu). i.e. Objectclasses, attributes, matching rules. and cluster. This has aspects of "DNA (directory node analysis) signature. Hypothesis: using same configuration (same LDAP, same SOM parameters) results in exactly same mapping. f) Continue with genetic algorithm. g) Find reference set as intersection of <iPlanet, Novell, OpenLDAP, SecureWay>. Conduct clustering using this reference set as the "expert solution" to achieve. Compare to results of experiments b) or c) which used a "universal vector." h) Find reference set as <person, organizationalPerson, inetOrgPerson, eduPerson, other_ eduPerson>. Conduct clustering using this reference set as the "expert solution" to achieve. Compare to results of experiments b) or c) which used a "universal vector." Hypothesis: at least from perspective of specific filter , this then clusters appropriately. I.e. "As an expert in a certain area (person info), I'm only interested in those objects anyway." i) Calculate distances of resulting SOM objects mappings (i.e. don't just use fixed rectangular matrix) and determine clustering. Compare for different LDAPs. Hypothesis: we can determine clusters more accurately. i) Using similar calculation of object distances on resulting mappings, determine threshold of "nearness" that identifies clusters. If g) or h) reference sets have a certain nearness factor, is that helpful? j) Consider reference sets that aggregate. Start with core, cluster, include new items in core that are close, recluster. is there a reasonable point at which one now has robust reference set that works in general? Hypothesis: we can build around an "armature" and soon the form becomes self-evident. |
Last Updated: March 2, 2006