Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
omtg [2014/07/07 15:55] clodoveu |
omtg [2018/07/04 15:08] (current) clodoveu |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| OMT-G is a data model for the design of geographic database systems and applications. OMT-G starts with Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagram primitives, introducing geographic primitives in order to enhance UML's semantic representation capabilities, thus reducing the distance between the designer's mental model of the reality and the usual representation tools. OMT-G provides primitives for modeling the geometric shape and location of geographic objects, supporting spatial and topological relationships, "whole-part" structures, networks, and multiple representations. Furthermore, the model allows the specification of alphanumeric attributes and methods associated to each class. The model's main strong points include its graphical expressivity and its compactness, since textual annotations are replaced by pictograms and symbols indicating explicit relationships, which are able to denote the dynamic nature of the interaction between spatial and non-spatial objects. From the model, it is also possible to derive spatial integrity constraints, specified along with the usual constraints found in conventional database design. Using these assets, the mapping between the conceptual schema and the physical implementation can be executed more soundly and preserving the semantics contained in the higher abstraction level. | OMT-G is a data model for the design of geographic database systems and applications. OMT-G starts with Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagram primitives, introducing geographic primitives in order to enhance UML's semantic representation capabilities, thus reducing the distance between the designer's mental model of the reality and the usual representation tools. OMT-G provides primitives for modeling the geometric shape and location of geographic objects, supporting spatial and topological relationships, "whole-part" structures, networks, and multiple representations. Furthermore, the model allows the specification of alphanumeric attributes and methods associated to each class. The model's main strong points include its graphical expressivity and its compactness, since textual annotations are replaced by pictograms and symbols indicating explicit relationships, which are able to denote the dynamic nature of the interaction between spatial and non-spatial objects. From the model, it is also possible to derive spatial integrity constraints, specified along with the usual constraints found in conventional database design. Using these assets, the mapping between the conceptual schema and the physical implementation can be executed more soundly and preserving the semantics contained in the higher abstraction level. | ||
| - | OMT-G is based on three main concepts: *classes*, *relationships*, and *spatial integrity constraints*. Classes and relationships define the basic primitives that are used to create application static schemas. The spatial integrity constraints ensure the necessary conditions to keep the database always consistent. Two types of classes are proposed by the OMT-G model: *georeferenced* and *conventional*, as shown below. | + | OMT-G is based on three main concepts: //classes//, //relationships//, and //spatial integrity constraints//. Classes and relationships define the basic primitives that are used to create application static schemas. The spatial integrity constraints ensure the necessary conditions to keep the database always consistent. Two types of classes are proposed by the OMT-G model: //georeferenced// and //conventional//, as shown in Figure 1. |
| - | Figure classes | + | | {{ http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/classes.png | OMT-G classes}} | |
| + | | **Figure 1 - OMT-G classes, simplified notation** | | ||
| + | Conventional classes behave as UML classes and have no geographical properties. Georeferenced classes include a geographical representation alternative, which specializes in two types of representations: discrete, associated with real world elements (//geo-objects//), or continuously distributed over the space (//geo-fields//). Geo-objects are represented with points, lines, polygons or network elements (nodes, unidirectional and bidirectional arcs). Geo-fields correspond to variables such as soil type, relief and temperature, often seen as a surface, and can be represented by isolines, tessellation, planar subdivision, sampling or triangular irregular network (TIN). Figures 2 and 3 show, respectively, examples of geo-object and geo-field classes. | ||
| + | | {{ http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/geo-objects.png |OMT-G geo-object classes}} | | ||
| + | | **Figure 2 - OMT-G geo-object classes** | | ||
| + | |||
| + | | {{ http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/geo-fields.png |OMT-G geo-field classes}} | | ||
| + | | **Figure 3 - OMT-G geo-field classes** | | ||
| + | |||
| + | Relationships can be //conventional//, i.e., simple associations, such as in UML relationships, or //georeferenced//. The latter include topological relations (e.g. touch, in, cross, overlap, and disjoint), arc-node network relations and spatial aggregations (i.e. “whole-part” aggregations). Generalizations and specializations can be total/partial or disjoint/overlapping and require that the participating classes have the same type of representation. The conceptual generalization allows modeling objects with multiple geographic representations, which may vary according to the scale or to the geometric shape. Figure 4 shows the OMT-G notations for relationships. | ||
| + | |||
| + | | {{ http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/simple-association.png |Simple association}} | | ||
| + | | //(a) Simple association// | | ||
| + | | {{ http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/spatial.png |Spatial relationship}} | | ||
| + | | //(b) Spatial relationship// | | ||
| + | | {{ http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/arc-node.png |Arc-node network relationship}} | | ||
| + | | //<nowiki>(c)</nowiki> Arc-node network relationship// | | ||
| + | | {{ http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/spatial-aggregation.png |Spatial aggregation}} | | ||
| + | | //(d) Spatial aggregation// | | ||
| + | | {{ http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/generalization.png | Generalization/specialization}} | | ||
| + | | //(e) Generalization / specialization// | | ||
| + | | {{ http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/conceptual.png |Conceptual generalization}} | | ||
| + | | //(f) Conceptual generalization// | | ||
| + | | **Figure 4 - OMT-G relationships** | | ||
| //OMT-G é um modelo de dados dotado de recursos para o projeto de bancos de dados e aplicações geográficas. O OMT-G parte das primitivas definidas para o diagrama de | //OMT-G é um modelo de dados dotado de recursos para o projeto de bancos de dados e aplicações geográficas. O OMT-G parte das primitivas definidas para o diagrama de | ||
| Line 26: | Line 49: | ||
| ===== Tools ===== | ===== Tools ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[http://aqui.io/omtg| OMT-G Designer]] | ||
| [[http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/setup.exe|OMT-G modeling tool based on StarUML]] [[http://sourceforge.net/projects/omt-gextensionf/files|SourceForge page]] | [[http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/~clodoveu/files/OMT-G/setup.exe|OMT-G modeling tool based on StarUML]] [[http://sourceforge.net/projects/omt-gextensionf/files|SourceForge page]] | ||
| Line 49: | Line 74: | ||
| :!: Borges, K. A. V., Davis Jr., C. A., Laender, A. H. F. Integrity Constraints in Spatial Databases. In: Doorn, J. H., Rivero, L. C. (Org.) **//Database Integrity: Challenges and Solutions//**. Hershey (PA), Estados Unidos: Idea Group Publishing, 2002, 144-171. [[http://www.igi-global.com/books/details.asp?id=284|IGI]] [[http://www.amazon.com/Database-Integrity-Challenges-Jorge-Doorn/dp/1930708386|Amazon]] | :!: Borges, K. A. V., Davis Jr., C. A., Laender, A. H. F. Integrity Constraints in Spatial Databases. In: Doorn, J. H., Rivero, L. C. (Org.) **//Database Integrity: Challenges and Solutions//**. Hershey (PA), Estados Unidos: Idea Group Publishing, 2002, 144-171. [[http://www.igi-global.com/books/details.asp?id=284|IGI]] [[http://www.amazon.com/Database-Integrity-Challenges-Jorge-Doorn/dp/1930708386|Amazon]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lizardo, L. E. O. ; Davis Jr., C. A. . A PostGIS extension to support advanced spatial data types and integrity constraints. In: 25th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (ACM SIGSPATIAL 2017), 2017, Redondo Beach, California. Proceedings of ACM SIGSPATIAL 2017, 2017. [[https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3140020|ACM Digital Library]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lizardo, L. E. O. ; DAVIS JUNIOR, C. A. . OMT-G Designer: a Web tool for geographic database modeling. In: 8th International Workshop on Semantic and Conceptual Issues in GIS (SeCoGIS 2014), 2014, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2014. v. 8823. p. 228-233. [[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-12256-4_24|Springer]] | ||
| Davis Jr., C. A. Múltiplas Representações em Bancos de Dados Geográficos. Tese de Doutorado, Departamento de Ciência da Computação, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 2000. [[http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/pos/cursos/defesas/460D.PDF|PDF]] | Davis Jr., C. A. Múltiplas Representações em Bancos de Dados Geográficos. Tese de Doutorado, Departamento de Ciência da Computação, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 2000. [[http://www.dcc.ufmg.br/pos/cursos/defesas/460D.PDF|PDF]] | ||
