Correspondence and translation for heterogeneous data

  • Serge Abiteboul
  • Sophie Cluet
  • Tova Milo
Contributed Papers Session 7: Unstructured Data
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1186)


We presented a specification of the integration of heterogeneous data based on correspondence rules. We showed how a unique specification can served many purposes (including two-way translation) assuming some reasonable restrictions. We claim that the framework and restrictions are acceptable in practice, and in particular one can show that all the document-OODB correspondences/translations of [2, 3] are covered. We are currently working on further substantiating this by more experimentation.

When applying the work presented here a number of issues arise such as the specification of default values when some information is missing in the translation. A more complex one is the introduction of some simple constraints in the model, e.g., keys.

Another important implementation issue is to choose between keeping one of the representations virtual vs. materializing both. In particular, it is conceivable to apply in this larger setting the optimization techniques developed in a OODB/SGML context for queries [2] and updates [3].


Translation Rule Integration Task Correspondence Rule Very Large Data Base Translation Problem 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Abiteboul and C. Beeri. On the power of languages for the manipulation of complex objects. Technical report, INRIA and the department of computer science of the Hebrew University of Israel, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Abiteboul, S. Cluet, and T. Milo. Querying and updating the file. In Proc. VLDB, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Abiteboul, S. Cluet, and T. Milo. A database interface for files update. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data, San Jose, California, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Abiteboul and P. C. Kanellakis. Object identity as a query language primitive. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data, pages 159–173, 1989. to appear in J. ACM. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Beeri, S. Naqvi, R. Ramakrishnan, O. Shmueli, and S. Tsur. Sets and negation in a logic database language (LDL1). In Proc. ACM SIGMOD/SIGACT Conf. on Princ. of Database Syst. (PODS), pages 21–37, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Buneman, S. Davidson, K. Hart, C. Overton, and L. Wong. A data transformation system for biological data sources. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pages 158–169, Zurich, Switzerland, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Buneman, S. Davidson, and D. Suciu. Programming constructs for unstructured data, May 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.J. Carey et al. Towards heterogeneous multimedia information systems: The Garlic approach. Technical Report RJ 9911, IBM Almaden Research Center, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T.-P. Chang and R. Hull. Using witness generators to support bi-directional update between objactbased databases. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD/SIGACT Conf. on Princ. of Database Syst. (PODS), San Jose, California, May 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Christophides, S. Abiteboul, S. Cluet, and M. Scholl. From structured documents to novel query facilities. In Proc. ACM Sigmod, Minneapolis, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O. Deux. The story of O2. IEEE Trans. on Data and Knowledge Eng., 2(1):91–108, March 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.C. Franchitti and R. King. Amalgame: a tool for creating interoperating persistent, heterogeneous components. Advanced Database Systems, pages 313–36, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Gyssens, J.Paredaens, and D. V. Gucht. A grammar based approach towards unifying hierarchical data models. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Hull and M. Yoshikawa. ILOG: Declarative creation and manipulation of object-identifiers. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Brisbane, Australia, Aug 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Kifer and G. Lausen. F-logic: A higher-order language for reasoning about objects. In sigmod, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Kifer, G. Lausen, and Wu James. Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages Journal of ACM, MAY 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. M. Kuper and M. Y. Vardi. The logical data model. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 18(3):379–413, sept 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Maier. A logic for objects. Technical Report TR CS/E-86-012, Oregon Graduate Center, Nov 1986Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Papakonstantinou, H. Garcia-Molina, and J. Ullman. Medmaker: A mediation system based on declarative specifications. Available by anonymous ftp at as the file /pub/papakonstantinou/1995/ Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y. Papakonstantinou, H. Garcia-Molina, and J. Widom. Object exchange across heterogeneous information sources. In International Conference on Data Engineering, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Quass, A. Rajaraman, Y. Sagiv, J. Ullman, and J. Widom. Querying semistructured heterogeneous information. Technical report, Stanford University, 1995. Available by anonymous ftp from Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serge Abiteboul
    • 1
  • Sophie Cluet
    • 2
  • Tova Milo
    • 3
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStandford
  2. 2.INRIALe ChesnayFrance
  3. 3.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations