domain_model
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| domain_model [2011/03/23 19:05] – kai | domain_model [2011/03/29 22:50] (current) – [RDF Implementation] michael | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| ====== RDF Implementation ====== | ====== RDF Implementation ====== | ||
| - | * Graph and Triples here... | + | The abstract domain model has to be expressed to elements offered by a specific data model to be useful. The following illustrates a way to annotate RDF (meta-)data with provenance annotation. |
| + | # Named graph: http:// | ||
| + | @prefix dct: < | ||
| + | @prefix dctype: < | ||
| + | | ||
| + | :MonaLisa dct:format dctype: | ||
| + | dct:creator : | ||
| + | # Named graph: http:// | ||
| + | @prefix dct: < | ||
| + | | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | dct:creator :BnF . | ||
| + | | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | | ||
| + | These triples describe two separate RDF graphs. | ||
| + | | ||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | The following table shows how some of the RDF resources map to their corresponding UML classes of the domain model. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ^ RDF ^ UML | ||
| + | | :MonaLisa dct:creator : | ||
| + | | < | ||
| + | | < | ||
| + | | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | Our example consists of two statements about the resource '': | ||
| + | |||
| + | Statements that are part of this graph are considered annotations, | ||
| ====== Issues and further Ideas ====== | ====== Issues and further Ideas ====== | ||
| * Superclass of Description Set necessary? Domain/ | * Superclass of Description Set necessary? Domain/ | ||
domain_model.1300903559.txt.gz · Last modified: 2011/03/23 19:05 by kai
