Combining OWL Ontology and Schema Annotations in Metadata Management

  • Tadeusz Pankowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6678)

Abstract

We discuss a problem of using knowledge acquired in semantic annotation and provided by OWL ontology for deciding about the existence of semantic mappings between XML schemas. The problem is identified as a metadata management problem faced in data exchange and data integration systems. We show how AI, semantic Web and database technologies may be combined to obtain schema mappings and to reason about semantic preservation of these mappings.

Keywords

Schema Mapping Tree Pattern Semantic Annotation Schema Annotation Data Integration System 
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. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arenas, M., Barceló, P., Libkin, L., Murlak, F.: Relational and XML Data Exchange. Synthesis Lectures on Data Management. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Francisco (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas, M., Pérez, J., Reutter, J.L., Riveros, C.: Foundations of schema mapping management. In: Paredaens, J., Gucht, D.V. (eds.) PODS, pp. 227–238. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brzykcy, G., Bartoszek, J., Pankowski, T.: Schema Mappings and Agents’ Actions in P2P Data Integration System. Journal of Universal Computer Science 14(7), 1048–1060 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corchado, E., Abraham, A., de Carvalho, A.C.P.L.F.: Hybrid intelligent algorithms and applications. Inf. Sci. 180(14), 2633–2634 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doan, A., Halevy, A.Y.: Semantic integration research in the database community: A brief survey. AI Magazine 26(1), 83–94 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fagin, R.: Inverting schema mappings. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 32(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Popa, L., Tan, W.C.: Composing schema mappings: Second-order dependencies to the rescue. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 30(4), 994–1055 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of logic programming. Springer, Berlin (1987)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P.A., Doan, A., Halevy, A.Y.: Corpus-based schema matching. In: ICDE 2005, pp. 57–68. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax (2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-syntax
  12. 12.
    Pankowski, T.: Detecting semantics-preserving XML schema mappings based on annotations to OWL ontology. In: EDBT/ICDT Workshop on Logic in Databases (LID 2011). ACM Digital Library, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tadeusz Pankowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Control and Information EngineeringPoznań University of TechnologyPoland

Personalised recommendations