UMAP: A Universal Layer for Schema Mapping Languages

  • Florin Chertes
  • Ingo Feinerer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8056)

Abstract

Schema mappings are fundamental notions in data exchange and integration for relating source and target schemas. Visual mapping languages provide graphical means to visually describe such transformations. There is a plethora of tools and languages available however all use different notions and visualizations and are hardly extensible.

In this paper we propose a new universal layer Umap for schema mapping languages which provides a unified abstraction and middleware for high-level visual mapping languages. We use only standardized Uml and OCL artifacts which allow for easy code generation in a number of target languages (e.g.C++ code) and for a modular extension mechanism to support complex schema mappings. We illustrate our layer by translating key elements of Clip, a recent expressive visual mapping language, and show that Umap has enough expressive power to encode all Clip features. Moreover, we outline a strategy for automating the translation of any visual input language with a formal meta-model to Umap.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Popa, L., Tan, W.C.: Composing schema mappings: Second-order dependencies to the rescue. ACM TODS 30(4), 994–1055 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lenzerini, M.: Data integration: a theoretical perspective. In: PODS. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Popa, L., Velegrakis, Y., Hernández, M.A., Miller, R.J., Fagin, R.: Translating web data. In: CAiSE 2002 and VLDB 2002, pp. 598–609. Morgan Kaufmann (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fuxman, A., Hernandez, M.A., Ho, H., Miller, R.J., Papotti, P., Popa, L.: Nested mappings: schema mapping reloaded. In: VLDB, pp. 67–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raffio, A., Braga, D., Ceri, S., Papotti, P., Hernández, M.A.: Clip: a visual language for explicit schema mappings. In: ICDE 2008, pp. 30–39 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexe, B., ten Cate, B., Kolaitis, P.G., Tan, W.C.: Designing and refining schema mappings via data examples. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 133–144 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language Superstructure 2.4.1. (2011), www.omg.org
  8. 8.
    OMG: Object Constraint Language 2.3.1. (2012), http://www.omg.org
  9. 9.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 70–118 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beckert, B., Keller, U., Schmitt, P.: Translating the Object Constraint Language into first-order predicate logic. In: VERIFY, FLoC (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: semantics and query answering. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336(1), 89–124 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language Infrastructure 2.4.1. (2011), www.omg.org
  13. 13.
    Meyer, B.: Introduction to the Theory of Programming Languages. P.-H. (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chertes, F.: DBAI-TR-2012-76. Technical report, DBAI, TU Wien (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akehurst, D.H., Bordbar, B.: On querying UML data models with OCL. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 91–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florin Chertes
    • 1
  • Ingo Feinerer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations