Advertisement

The VLDB Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 333–353 | Cite as

Implementing mapping composition

  • Philip A. Bernstein
  • Todd J. Green
  • Sergey Melnik
  • Alan Nash
Special Issue Paper

Abstract

Mapping composition is a fundamental operation in metadata driven applications. Given a mapping over schemas σ1 and σ2 and a mapping over schemas σ2 and σ3, the composition problem is to compute an equivalent mapping over σ1 and σ3. We describe a new composition algorithm that targets practical applications. It incorporates view unfolding. It eliminates as many σ2 symbols as possible, even if not all can be eliminated. It covers constraints expressed using arbitrary monotone relational operators and, to a lesser extent, non-monotone operators. And it introduces the new technique of left composition. We describe our implementation, explain how to extend it to support user-defined operators, and present experimental results which validate its effectiveness.

Keywords

Model management Schema mappings Mapping composition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernstein, P.A.: Applying model management to classical meta-data problems. In: CIDR (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein P.A., Halevy A.Y. and Pottinger R. (2006). A vision of management of complex models. SIGMOD Record 29(4): 55–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buneman, P., Davidson, S.B., Kosky, A.: Theoretical aspects of schema merging. In: Proc. EDBT, pp. 152–167 (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fagin R., Kolaitis P.G., Popa L. and Tan W.C. (2005). Composing schema mappings: second-order dependencies to the rescue. ACM TODS 30(4): 994–1055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Madhavan, J., Halevy, A.Y.: Composing mappings among data sources In: Proc. VLDB, pp. 572–583 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Melnik, S., Bernstein, P.A., Halevy, A., Rahm, E.: Supporting Executable Mappings in model management. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nash, A., Bernstein, P.A., Melnik, S.: Composition of mappings given by embedded dependencies. ACM TODS 32(1) (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pottinger, R., Bernstein, P.A.: Merging models based on given correspondences. In: Proc. VLDB, pp. 826–873 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stonebraker, M.: Implementation of integrity constraints and views by query Modification. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD, pp. 65–78 (1975)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tatarinov, I., Halevy, A.Y.: Efficient query reformulation in peer-data management systems. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taylor, N., Ives, Z.: Reconciling changes while tolerating disagreement in collaborative data sharing. In: Proc. ACM SIGMOD (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yannakakis M., (1982). Papadimitriou, C.H.: Algebraic dependencies. J. Comput. System. Sci. 25(1): 2–41 zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu, C., Popa, L.: Semantic adaptation of schema mappings when schemas evolve. In: Proc. VLDB, pp. 1006–1017 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip A. Bernstein
    • 1
  • Todd J. Green
    • 2
  • Sergey Melnik
    • 1
  • Alan Nash
    • 3
  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA
  2. 2.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.IBM Almaden Research CenterSan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations