Property-Based Semantic Reconciliation of Heterogeneous Information Sources

  • Jeffrey Parsons
  • Yair Wand
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2503)

Abstract

Integrating information from diverse sources is of great importance in the database area. The main difficulty in information integration is reconciling data semantics. Common approaches to semantic reconciliation are based on first identifying similar entity types in various sources, and then reconciling entity type properties (attributes and relationships). Such approaches assume all instances to be reconciled belong to well-defined types. We suggest an alternative approach based on two fundamental principles. First, reconciliation does not require that instances be assigned to specific types. Instead, sources can be reconciled by analyzing similarities of properties. Second, properties that appear different may be manifestations of a higher-level property that has the same meaning across sources. We present the fundamental ideas underlying our approach, analyze its potential advantages, suggest how the approach can be formalized, demonstrate with examples the feasibility of using it for semantic reconciliation, and suggest directions for further research.

Keywords

Entity Type Preceding Property Precedence Schema Lower Level Property Semantic Heterogeneity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [I]
    Batini, C, M. Lenzerini, and S.B. Navathe, “A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration,” ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4), 1986, 323–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bunge, M., Treatise on Basic Philosophy (Volume 3), Ontology I: The Furniture of the World, Boston: Reidel, 1977.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bunge, M., Treatise on Basic Philosophy (Volume 4), Ontology II: A World of Systems, Boston: Reidel, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Castano, S., V. De Antonellis, M. Fugini, and B. Pernici (1999), “Conceptual Schema Analysis: Techniques and Applications,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 23(3), 286–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Castano, S., V. De Antonellis, and S. De Capitani di Vimercati (2001), “Global Viewing of Heterogeneous Data Sources,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 13(2), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Clarke, C, G. Cormack, and F. Burkowski (1995), “Schema-Independent Retrieval from Heterogeneous Structured Text,” in Fourth Annual Symposium on Document Analysis and Information Retrieval, 279–289.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Clifton, C, E. Housman, and A. Rosenthal (1997), “Experience with a Combined Approach to Attribute-Matching Across Heterogeneous Databases,” Data Mining and Reverse Engineering. Proceedings ofDS-7, IFIP 1997.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Cohen, W. (1998), “Integration of Heterogeneous Databases Without Common Domains Using Queries Based on Textual Similarity,” Proceedings of the Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’98), Seattle, WA, 201–212.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Goble, C, S. Bechhofer, L. Carr, D. De Roure, and W. Hall (2001), “Conceptual Open Hypermedia = The Semantic Web?” Proceedings of the 2001 Semantic Web Workshop, Hong Kong, China, 7 pages.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Hulgeri, A., G. Bhalotia, C. Nakhe, and S. Chakrabarti (2001), “Keyword Search in Databases,” IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 24(3), 22–32.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Lee, J.-O. and D.-K. Baik (1999), “SemQL: A Semantic Query Language for Multidatabase Systems,” Proceedings of the Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’99), Kansas City, MO, 259–266.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Litwin, W., L. Mark, and N. Roussopoulos (1990), “Interoperability of Multiple Autonomous Databases,” ACM Computing Surveys, 22(3), 267–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Maedche, A. and S. Staab (2001), “Learning Ontologies for the Semantic Web,” Proceedings of the 2001 Semantic Web Workshop, Hong Kong, China, 10 pages.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Miller, R., “Using Schematically Heterogeneous Structures,” Proceedings SIGMOD’98, Seattle, WA, 189–200.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Naiman, C. and A. Ouksel, “A Classification of Semantic Conflicts in Heterogeneous Information Systems,” Journal of Organizational Computing, 5(2), 1995, 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Paepcke, A., C.-C. Chang, H. Garcia-Molina, and T. Winograd (1998), “Interoperability for Digital Libraries Worldwide,” Communications of the ACM, 41(4), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Parent, C, S. Spaccapietra (1998), “Database Integration: an Overview of Issues and Approaches,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 41, no 5, pp. 166–178, May 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Parsons, J. and Y. Wand, (2000), “Emancipating Instances from the Tyranny of Classes in Information Modeling,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 25(2), 228–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Qian, X. (1993), “Semantic Interoperation Via Intelligent Mediation,” Proceedings of the 1993 International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering, 228–231.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Reddy, M.P., B.E. Prasad, P.G. Reddy, and A. Gupta, “A Methodology for Integration of Heterogeneous Databases,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 6(6), 1994, 920–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Sciore, E., M. Siegel, and A. Rosenthal (1994), “Using Semantic Values to Facilitate Interoperability Among Heterogeneous Information Systems,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 19(2), 254–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Smith, K. and L. Obrst, “Unpacking the Semantics of Source and Usage to Perform Semantic Reconciliation in Large-Scale Information Systems,” ACM SIGMOD Record, 28(1), 1999, 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Toivonen, S. (2001), “Using RDF(S) to Provide Multiple Views into a Single Ontology,” Proceedings of the 2001 Semantic Web Workshop, Hongkong, China, 6 pages.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Wand, Y., “A Proposal for a Formal Model of Objects,” in W. Kim (ed.) and F. Lochovsky (eds.), Object-oriented Concepts, Databases and Applications, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989, 537–559.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Wand, Y., V. Storey, and R. Weber, “An Ontological Analysis of the relationship Construct in Conceptual Modelling”, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 24, No. 4, December 1999, pp. 494–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Wand, Y. and Weber, R., “An Ontological Model of an Information System,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(11), November 1990, 1282–1292.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Wand, Y. and Weber, R., “On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars,” Journal of Information Systems, 1993, 217–237.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Wand, Y. and Weber, R., “Towards a Theory of Deep Structure of Information Systems,” Journal of Information Systems, 1995, 203–223.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey Parsons
    • 1
  • Yair Wand
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Business AdministrationMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Commerce and Business AdministrationThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations