Advertisement

Accessing and Documenting Relational Databases through OWL Ontologies

  • Carlo Curino
  • Giorgio Orsi
  • Emanuele Panigati
  • Letizia Tanca
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5822)

Abstract

Relational databases have been designed to store high volumes of data and to provide an efficient query interface. Ontologies are geared towards capturing domain knowledge, annotations, and to offer high-level, machine-processable views of data and metadata. The complementary strengths and weaknesses of these data models motivate the research effort we present in this paper. The goal of this work is to bridge the relational and ontological worlds, in order to leverage the efficiency and scalability of relational technologies and the high level view of data and metadata proper of ontologies. The system we designed and developed achieves: (i) automatic ontology extraction from relational data sources and (ii) automatic query translation from SPARQL to SQL. Among the others, we focus on two main applications of this novel technology: (i) ontological publishing of relational data, and (ii) automatic relational schema annotation and documentation. The system has been designed and tested against real life scenarios from Big Science projects, which are used as running examples throughout the paper.

Keywords

Relational Database Relational Schema Query Execution SPARQL Query Concrete Domain 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gruber, T.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Int. Journal of Human and Computer Studies (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Horrocks, I.: A comparison of two modelling paradigms in the semantic web. In: Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chawathe, S., Garcia-Molina, H., Hammer, J., Ireland, K., Papakonstantinou, Y., Ullman, J., Widom, J.: The tsimmis project: Integration of heterogeneous information sources. In: Proc. of IPSJ Conference, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 7–18 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atzeni, P., Ceri, S., Paraboschi, S., Torlone, R.: Database Systems - Concepts, Languages and Architectures. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curino, C.A., Moon, H.J., Zaniolo, C.: Managing the history of metadata in support for db archiving and schema evolution. In: ER Workshop on Evolution and Change in Data Management ( ECDM) (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curino, C.A., Tanca, L., Zaniolo, C.: Information systems integration and evolution: Ontologies at rescue. In: International Workshop on Semantic Technologies in System Maintenance ( STSM) (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: Sparql query language for rdf. Technical report, W3C (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bolchini, C., Curino, C., Schreiber, F.A., Tanca, L.: Context integration for mobile data tailoring. In: Proc. IEEE/ACM of Int. Conf. on Mobile Data Management, IEEE, ACM (May 2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bolchini, C., Schreiber, F.A., Tanca, L.: A methodology for very small database design. Information Systems 32(1) (March 2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curino, C.A., Moon, H.J., Tanca, L., Zaniolo, C.: Pantha rei data set (2008), http://yellowstone.cs.ucla.edu/schema-evolution/index.php/Schema_Evolution_Benchmark
  13. 13.
    de Laborda, C.P., Conrad, S.: Relational.owl: a data and schema representation format based on owl. In: Proc. of the 2nd Asia-Pacific Conf. on conceptual modelling APCM 2005, vol. 43, pp. 89–96 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The description logic handbook: theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics and complexity of sparql. In: Proc. of the 5th Intl. Semantic Web Conference ISWC 2007, pp. 30–43 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bizer, C., Cyganiak, R.: D2r server: Publishing relational databases on the semantic web. In: In Proc. of the 5th Intl. Semantic Web Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    An, Y., Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Discovering the semantics of relational tables through mappings. In: Spaccapietra, S. (ed.) Journal on Data Semantics VII. LNCS, vol. 4244, pp. 1–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Volz, R., Handschuh, S., Staab, S., Studer, R.: Ontolift demonstrator. Technical Report D12, WonderWeb project deliverable (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Upadhyaya, S.R., Kumar, P.S.: Eronto: a tool for extracting ontologies from extended e/r diagrams. In: Proc. of the 2005 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 666–670 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu, X., Cao, X., Dong, Y., Su, W.: Formal approach and automated tool for translating er schemata into owl ontologies. Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 464–475Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sahoo, S.S., Halb, W., Hellmann, S., Idehen, K., Thibodeau Jr., T., Auer, S., Sequeda, J., Ezzat, A.: A survey of current approaches for mapping of relational databases to rdf. Technical report, W3C RDB2RDF Incubator Group (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Curino
    • 1
  • Giorgio Orsi
    • 1
  • Emanuele Panigati
    • 1
  • Letizia Tanca
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations