From the Heterogeneity Jungle to Systematic Benchmarking

  • M. Wimmer
  • G. Kappel
  • A. Kusel
  • W. Retschitzegger
  • J. Schoenboeck
  • W. Schwinger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6627)


One of the key challenges in the development of model transformations is the resolution of recurring semantic and syntactic heterogeneities. Thus, we provide a systematic classification of heterogeneities building upon a feature model that makes the interconnections between them explicit. On the basis of this classification, a set of benchmark examples was derived and used to evaluate current approaches to the specification of model transformations. We found, that approaches on the conceptual level lack expressivity whereas execution level approaches lack support for reuse. Moreover, only few of the approaches evaluated provide key features such as an automatic trace model or the ability to reuse specifications by inheritance.


Syntactic and Semantic Heterogeneities Mapping Benchmark 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alexe, B., Tan, W.-C., Velegrakis, Y.: STBenchmark: Towards a Benchmark for Mapping Systems. VLDB Endow 1(1), 230–244 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.B.: A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration. ACM Comp. Surv. 18(4), 323–364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bézivin, J.: On the Unification Power of Models. Journal on SoSyM 4(2), 31 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blaha, M., Premerlani, W.: A catalog of object model transformations. In: Proc. of the 3rd Working Conf. on Reverse Engineering (WCRE 1996), pp. 87–96 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based Survey of Model Transformation Approaches. IBM Systems Journal 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Staged Configuration Using Feature Models. In: Proc. of Third Software Product Line Conf., pp. 266–283 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Del Fabro, M., Bézivin, J., Valduriez, P.: Model-driven Tool Interoperability: an Application in Bug Tracking 1. In: Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Ontologies, DataBases, and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE 2006), pp. 863–881 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hammer, J., Stonebraker, M., Topsakal, O.: THALIA: Test harness for the assessment of legacy information integration approaches. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Data Engineering (ICDE 2005), pp. 485–486 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Härder, T., Sauter, G., Thomas, J.: The intrinsic problems of structural heterogeneity and an approach to their solution. The VLDB Journal 8(1), 25–43 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Meaningful modeling: What’s the semantics of ”semantics”? IEEE Computer 37, 64–72 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull, R., King, R.: Semantic Database Modeling: Survey, Applications, and Research Issues. ACM Comp. Surv. 19(3), 201–260 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kashyap, V., Sheth, A.: Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects: A context-based approach. The VLDB Journal 5(4), 276–304 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, W., Seo, J.: Classifying Schematic and Data Heterogeneity in Multidatabase Systems. Computer 24(12), 12–18 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klein, M.: Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In: Proc. of Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing (IJCAI 2001), pp. 53–62 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Legler, F., Naumann, F.: A Classification of Schema Mappings and Analysis of Mapping Tools. In: Proc. of the GI-Fachtagung für Datenbanksysteme in Business, Technologie und Web (BTW 2007), pp. 449–464 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raffio, A., Braga, D., Ceri, S., Papotti, P., Hernández, M.A.: Clip: a visual language for explicit schema mappings. In: Proc. of the 24th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering (ICDE 2008), pp. 30–39 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scharffe, F., Fensel, D.: Correspondence Patterns for Ontology Alignment. In: Gangemi, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) EKAW 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5268, pp. 83–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sheth, A.P., Larson, J.A.: Federated Database Systems for Managing Distributed, Heterogeneous, and Autonomous Databases. ACM Comput. Surv. 22(3), 183–236 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varro, G., Schürr, A., Varro, D.: Benchmarking for graph transformation. In: Proc. of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VLHCC 2005), pp. 79–88 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Visser, P.R.S., Jones, D.M., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Shave, M.J.R.: An analysis of ontological mismatches: Heterogeneity versus interoperability. In: Proc. of AAAI 1997 Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, pp. 164–172 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schoenboeck, J., Schwinger, W.: Surviving the Heterogeneity Jungle with Composite Mapping Operators. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 260–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schönböck, J., Schwinger, W.: Towards an Expressivity Benchmark for Mappings based on a Systematic Classification of Heterogeneities. In: Proc. of the First Int. Workshop on Model-Driven Interoperability (MDI 2010) @ MoDELS 2010, pp. 32–41 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Wimmer
    • 1
  • G. Kappel
    • 1
  • A. Kusel
    • 2
  • W. Retschitzegger
    • 2
  • J. Schoenboeck
    • 1
  • W. Schwinger
    • 2
  1. 1.Vienna University of TechnologyAustria
  2. 2.Johannes Kepler University LinzAustria

Personalised recommendations