Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- domain_model [2011/03/02 14:45] – [How do we describe Description Sets and Annotation Sets?] kai
+++ domain_model [2011/03/29 20:50] (current) – [RDF Implementation] michael
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 {{domain-model-classes3.png|}}
-Namespaces:
-  * dcam ([[http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/|Dublin Core Abstract Model]]): http://dublincore.org/2010/10/11/dcam.rdf#
-  * dcprov : Namespace of the domain model. To be defined.
 The proposed model extends the [[http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/|Dublin Core Abstract Model]]. Particularly, we use the following classes:
@@ Line 59: / Line 55: @@
 The model for sure allows the use of arbitrary vocabularies as annotations and the mix of Dublin Core and other Vocabularies is perfectly ok, in the same way as it is common practice in usual application profiles.
+====== RDF Implementation ======
+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://example.org/data/ML-Desc
+  @prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
+  @prefix dctype: <http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/> .
+  :MonaLisa dct:format dctype:StillImage ;
+      dct:creator :LeonardoDaVinci .
+  # Named graph: http://example.org/data/ML-Anno
+  @prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
+  <http://example.org/data/ML-Desc> rdf:type dcam:DescriptionSet ;
+      dct:creator :BnF .
+  <http://example.org/data/ML-Anno> rdf:type dcprov:AnnotationSet .
+These triples describe two separate RDF graphs.
+{{:rdf-model.png|}}
+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 :LeonardoDaVinci .  | Description  |
+| <ML-Desc>  dct:creator :BnF . | Annotation |
+| <ML-Desc>    | Description Set |
+| <ML-Anno>    | Annotation Set |
+Our example consists of two statements about the resource '':MonaLisa'', one about authorship of the resource, the other about its format. The graph ''<ML-Desc>'' containing these statements forms a Description Set. Annotations about this metadata are contained in a second graph, ''<ML-Anno>'', forming an Annotation Set.
+Statements that are part of this graph are considered annotations, i.e., statements about the provenance of the //metadata// of the original resource '':MonaLisa'', not the resource itself. The statement ''<ML-Desc> dct:creator :BnF .'' would mean that the Bibliothèque nationale de France created the description of the :MonaLisa (i.e., the metadata) contained in the graph ''<ML-Desc>'' as opposed to the creation of the :MonaLisa itself.
 ====== Issues and further Ideas ======
    * Superclass of Description Set necessary? Domain/range problems in OWL, could be circumvented by property/chain inclusion?