Advertisement

A Formal Framework for Reasoning on Metadata Based on CWM

  • Xiaofei Zhao
  • Zhiqiu Huang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4215)

Abstract

During the metadata creation based on Common Warehouse Metamodel(CWM), the different experiences and views of describing data of organizations involved in metadata creation bring metadata on some problems inevitably, such as inconsistencies and redundancies. However, reasoning on CWM metadata for automatically detecting these problems is difficult because CWM metamodel and metadata lack precise semantics. In this paper, we formalize and reason on CWM metamodel and metadata in terms of a logic belonging to Description Logics, which are subsets of First-Order Logic. We distinguish consistency into horizontal consistency and evolution consistency. Towards evolution consistency, we extend CWM metamodel with version capabilities so that reasoning about inconsistency caused by evolution can be done. Then reasoning engine LOOM is applied to check consistency for the above two situations, the results are encouraging.

Keywords

Description Logic Object Constraint Language Formal Framework Object Management Group Model Drive Architecture 
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.
    Baader, F., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Object Management Group. Common Warehouse Metamodel(CWM) Specification Version 1.1 (November 2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poole, J., Chang, D., Tolbert, D., Mellor, D.: Common Warehouse Metamodel Developer’s Guide. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jane, B., Sarah, C., Hey Jessie, M.N.: Building Quality Assurance into Metadata Creation: an Analysis based on the Learning Objects and e-Prints Communities of Practice. In: Proceedings 2003 Dublin Core Conference: Supporting Communities of Discourse and Practice - Metadata Research and Applications(DCMI), Seattle, Washington, pp. 39–48 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hauch, R., Miller, A., Cardwell, R.: Information intelligence: metadata for information discovery, access, and integration. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pp. 793–798 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans, A.S.: Reasoning with UML class diagrams. In: Second IEEE Workshop on Industrial Strength Formal Specification Techniques(WIFT 1998) (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simmonds, J.: Consistency maintenance of uml models with description logic. Master’s thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (September 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In: Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems(POD 1998), pp. 149–158 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: Identification constraints and functional dependencies in description logics. In: Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence(IJCAI 2001) (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haarslev, V., Moller, R.: RACER system description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2083, p. 701. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finkelstein, A., Gabbay, D.M., Hunter, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B.: Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. In: European Software Engineering Conference, pp. 84–99 (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cali, A., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: A formal framework for reasoning on UML class diagrams. In: Hacid, M.-S., Raś, Z.W., Zighed, D.A., Kodratoff, Y. (eds.) ISMIS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2366, pp. 503–513. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brill, D.: LOOM reference manual, version 2.0 edition, University of Southern California, Information Sciences Institute (December 28, 1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grundy, J.C., Hosking, J.G., Mugridge, W.B.: Inconsistency management for multiple-view software development environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(11), 960–981 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language specification version 1.4. (September 2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finkelstein, A.: A Foolish Consistency: Technical Challenges in Consistency Management. In: Ibrahim, M., Küng, J., Revell, N. (eds.) DEXA 2000. LNCS, vol. 1873, p. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: Reasoning in description logics. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, pp. 193–238 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacGregor, R.: Inside the LOOM description classifier. SIGART Bull 2(3), 88–92 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horrocks, I.: FaCT and iFaCT. In: International Workshop on Description Logics(DL 1999), pp. 133–135 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mens, T., D’Hondt, T.: Automating support for software evolution in uml. Automated Software Engineering Journal 7(1), 39–59 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller, J., Mukerji, J.: Model driven architecture (MDA). Draft ormsc/2001-07-01, Architecture Board ORMSC (July 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaofei Zhao
    • 1
  • Zhiqiu Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations