I'm starting to work with graph databases, and in my team we've started modeling a graph for our software. The problem comes when we try to "document" the model, to see the structure of our database. With SQL databases you only have to look at the SQL schema.
We've spent some time reading neo4j blogs and documentation, but we've seen that the usual way to show how a graph works is with a minimal graph showing some sample data (Random samples: sample1, sample2, etc). That's great for educational purposes, but we'd love to be able to do it in a little more formal way. We'd like to set what kind of node can relate with another one, and with what kind of relationship, that kind of stuff.
Using Spring you can wrap the graph with classes, but it's very specific to Java and OO model, and we're working with Erlang. We're looking for some kind of formal language (SQL Schema equivalent), or a E-R model equivalent, or something like that.
One way to do this is to put the "meta-model" of your graph (a type network) in the graph as well and then connect the instances (nodes) to their meta-model-type. So you can visualize the meta-model using the graph visualization and at the same time use the meta-model to enforce additional constraints (by storing constraint information in the meta-model and using that when the actual model is updated) and also use the type-nodes of the meta-model to quickly access all "instance"-nodes of this type.
What is the domain you want to model?
A quick idea - could you use a subset of UML? Graph modeling seems to be closer to the domain, so maybe that's reasonable.
What we do is a generalization of the "example data" approach, where we include cardinality on each side of a relationship, as well as type and direction. I also often include a node "type" in the diagram (or some other specification of it's role/relation to domain models) instead of example data, and of course note the expected properties, their types, and whether they are optional. It's less than formal, but has served well so far.
