Distributed and Parallel Databases

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 223–271 | Cite as

OBSERVER: An Approach for Query Processing in Global Information Systems Based on Interoperation Across Pre-Existing Ontologies

  • Eduardo Mena
  • Arantza Illarramendi
  • Vipul Kashyap
  • Amit P. Sheth


There has been an explosion in the types, availability and volume of data accessible in an information system, thanks to the World Wide Web (the Web) and related inter-networking technologies. In this environment, there is a critical need to replace or complement earlier database integration approaches and current browsing and keyword-based techniques with concept-based approaches. Ontologies are increasingly becoming accepted as an important part of any concept or semantics based solution, and there is increasing realization that any viable solution will need to support multiple ontologies that may be independently developed and managed. In particular, we consider the use of concepts from pre-existing real world domain ontologies for describing the content of the underlying data repositories. The most challenging issue in this approach is that of vocabulary sharing, which involves dealing with the use of different terms or concepts to describe similar information. In this paper, we describe the architecture, design and implementation of the OBSERVER system. Brokering across the domain ontologies is enabled by representing and utilizing interontology relationships such as (but not limited to) synonyms, hyponyms and hypernyms across terms in different ontologies. User queries are rewritten by using these relationships to obtain translations across ontologies. Well established metrics like precision and recall based on the extensions underlying the concepts are used to estimate the loss of information, if any.

query processing in global information systems distributed heterogeneous data access domain ontologies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. Achilles, B. Hollunder, A. Laux, and J. Mohren, “KRIS: Knowledge representation and inference system”, Technical Report D-91-14, DFKI Kaiserslautern-Saarbrucken, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Arens, C.A. Knoblock, and W. Shen, “Query reformulation for dynamic information integration”, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, vol. 6, nos. 2/3, pp. 99–130, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Bayardo, W. Bohrer, R. Brice, A. Cichocki, G. Fowler, A. Helai, V. Kashyap, T. Ksiezyk, G. Martin, M. Nodine, M. Rashid, M. Rusinkiewicz, R. Shea, C. Unnikrishnan, A. Unruh, and D. Woelk, “InfoSleuth: Agent-based semantic integration of information in open and dynamic environments”, in Proceedings of the 1997 ACM International Conference on the Management of Data (SIGMOD), Tucson, Arizona., May 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.M. Blanco, A. Illarramendi, and A. Goñi, “Building a federated database system: An approach using a knowledge based system”, International Journal on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 415–455, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Borgida, “From type systems to knowledge representation: Natural semantics specifications for description logics”, International Journal on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Borgida, R.J. Brachman, D.L. McGuinness, and L.A. Resnick, “CLASSIC: A structural data model for objects”, in Proceedings ACM SIGMOD-89, Portland, Oregon, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Brachman and J. Schmolze, “An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system”, Cognitive Science, vol. 9, pp. 171–216, Feb. 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Chawathe, H. Garcia-Molina, J. Hammer, K. Ireland, Y. Papakonstantinou, J. Ullman, and J. Widom, “The TSIMMIS project: Integration of heterogeneous information sources”, in Proceedings of 10th IPSJ Conference, Tokyo, Japan, October 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Collet, M.N. Huhns, and W. Shen, “Resource integration using a large knowledge base in Carnot”, IEEE Computer, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 55–62, December 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Computing Research Laboratory (CRL) at New Mexico State University. Projects/mikro/index.html.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Dubois, J. Lang, and H. Prade, “Automated reasoning using possibilistic logic: Semantics, belief revision, and variable certainty weights”, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, Ferbruary 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Elmasri and S. Navathe, Fundamentals of Database Systems, 2nd edn., Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Excite. Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Goñi, J.M. Blanco, and A. Illarramendi, “Connecting knowledge bases with databases: A complete mapping relation”, in Proc. of the 8th ERCIM Workshop, Trondheim, Norway, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Goñi, E. Mena, and A. Illarramendi, “Querying heterogeneous and distributed data repositories using ontologies”, in Proceedings of the 7th European-Japanese Conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases (IMKB'97), Toulouse (France), May 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Gruber. Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Gruber, Theory BIBLIOGRAPHIC-DATA, September 1994. ontologies/html/bibliographic-data/index.html.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Hammer, M. Breunig, H. Garcia-Molina, S. Nestorov, V. Vassalos, and R. Yerneni, “Template-based wrappers in the TSIMMIS system”, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Tucson, Arizona, May 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Hammer and D. McLeod, “An approach to resolving semantic heterogeneity in a federation of autonomous, heterogeneous, database systems”, International Journal on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 2, no, 1, March 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    V. Kashyap and A. Sheth, “Semantic and schematic similarities between databases objects: A context-based approach”, The VLDB Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A.Y. Levy, D. Srivastava, and T. Kirk. “Data model and query evaluation in global information systems”, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 121–143, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. MacGregor, “A deductive pattern matcher”, in Proceedings of AAAI-88, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 1987.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Mena. Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. Mena, A. Illarramendi, and J.M. Blanco, “Discovering relationships among ontologies describing data repositories contents”, in International Conference on Information, Systems, Analysis and Synthesis (ISAS'96), Orlando (Florida), USA, July 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    E. Mena, V. Kashyap, A. Illarramendi, and A. Sheth, “Managing multiple information sources through ontologies: Relationship between vocabulary heterogeneity and loss of information”, in Proceedings of Knowledge Representation Meets Databases (KRDB'96), ECAI'96 Conference, Budapest, Hungary, August 1996, pp. 50–52.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    E. Mena, V. Kashyap, A. Illarramendi, and A. Sheth, “Domain specific ontologies for semantic information brokering on the global information infrastructure”, in Proc. of the International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems (FOIS'98). Trento (Italy), June 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Mena, V. Kashyap, A. Sheth, and A. Illarramendi, “OBSERVER: An approach for query processing in global information systems based on interoperation across pre-existing ontologies”, in Proc. of the First IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS'96), Brussels (Belgium), June, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Miller, “WordNet: A lexical database for english”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 38, no. 11, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Motro, “Multiplex: A formal model of multidatabases and its implementations”, Technical Report, Technical Report ISSE-TR-95-103, Department of Information and Software Systems Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, March 1995.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Papazoglou and S. Milliner, “Subject-based organization of the information space in multi-database networks”, in International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CaiSe), Pisa, Italy, June 1998.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. Salton, Automatic Text Processing, Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    P.H. Speel, “Selecting Knowledge Representation Systems”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1995.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    V. Subrahmanian et al., “HERMES: Heterogeneous reasoning and mediator system”, projects/hermes/overview/paper/index.html.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    A. Tomasic, L. Raschid, and P. Valduriez, “Scaling heterogeneous distributed databases and the design of DISCO”, in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, Hong Kong, 1995.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pauray S.M. Tsai and Arbee L.P. Chen, “Querying uncertain data in heterogeneous databases”, in Third International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering: Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems, Vienna, Austria, April 1993.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    C.J. van Rijsbergen, “Information retrieval”, Scholar
  37. 37.
    K. von Luck, B. Nebel, C. Peltason, and A. Schmiedel, “The anatomy of the BACK system”, Technical Report KIT Report 41, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, F.R.G., 1987.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    VRML Architecture Group, Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduardo Mena
    • 1
  • Arantza Illarramendi
    • 2
  • Vipul Kashyap
    • 3
  • Amit P. Sheth
    • 4
  1. 1.IIS departmentUniversity of ZaragozaSpain
  2. 2.LSI departmentUPV-EHUSan SebastiánSpain
  3. 3.MorrisonUSA
  4. 4.LSDIS Lab.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations