Advertisement

Semantic similarity relations in schema integration

  • William W. Song
  • Paul Johannesson
  • Janis A. BubenkoJr.
Invited Papers (1) Database Design Aspects
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 645)

Abstract

To find similarities between objects of different schemata at the semantic level is a crucial problem in schema integration. To identify such similarities it is necessary to form a set of semantic characteristics the objects may have. In this paper, we present a set of such characteristics and a set of semantic similarity relations. The relations are classified into four groups, weak semantic relation, compatible semantic relation, equivalence semantic relation, and mergeable semantic relation. We also propose a schema integration tool, which makes use of the semantic relations to integrate objects of different schemata.

Keywords

view integration schema integration semantic similarity entityrelationship model conceptual schema design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Batini, C. and M. Lenzerini. A Methodology for Data Schema Integration in the Entity Relationship model. IEEE TOSE. SE-10(6): 650–664, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batini, C., M. Lenzerini and S. B. Navathe. A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration. ACM Computing Surveys. 18(4): 323–364, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouzeghoub, M. and I. Comyn-Wattiau. View Integration by Semantic Unification and Transformation of Data Structures. the 9th Int'l Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach. Lausanne, Switzerland. 1990Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bubenko, J. J. Knowledge for Schema Restructuring and Integration Tools. SYSLAB, DSV. SYSLAB IWN No. 1. 1985.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, P. P. The Entity-Relationship Model — Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM TODS. 1(1): 9–36, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dayal, U. and H.-Y. Hwang. View Definition and Generalization for Database Integration in a Multidatabase System. IEEE TOSE. SE-10(6): 628–644, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gogolla, M. and U. Hohenstein. Towards a Semantic View of an Extended Entity-Relationship Model. ACM TODS. 16(3): 369–416, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hayne, S. and S. Ram. Multi-user View Integration System (MUVIS): An Expert System for View Integration. IEEE 6th Int'l Conf. on Data Engineering. Los Angeles. 1990Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johannesson, P. A Logic Based Approach to Schema Integration. 10th International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach. San Fransisco. 1991Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johansson, B.-M. and C. Sundblad. View Integration: A Knowledge Problem. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, University of Stockholm. SYSLAB WP No. 115. 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larson, J., S. Navathe and R. Elmasri. A Theory of Attribute Equivalence in Database with Application to Schema Integration. IEEE TOSE. SE-15(4): 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Navathe, S., R. Elmasri and J. Larson. Integrating User Views in Database Design. IEEE Computer. 19(1): p. 50–62, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Navathe, S. B., T. Sashidhar and R. Elmasri. Relationship Mergeing in Schema Integration. 10th Int'l Conf. on Very Large Data Base. Singapore. 1984Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sheth, A. P., J. A. Larson, A. Cornelio and S. B. Navathe. A Tool for Integrating Conceptual Schemas and User Views. IEEE 4th Int'l Conf. on Data Engineering. Los Angeles. 1988Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song, W. View Integration: A Case Learning. DSV, SU/KTH, Sweden. SYSLAB WP No. 185. 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Song, W. W. An Approach to Conflict Detection and Assertion Making in Schema Integration. Department of Computer and System Sciences. SYSLAB IWN No. 47. 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Souza, J. M. d. SIS — A Schema Integration System. the 5th British National Conference on Databases (BNCODS). 1986Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sowa, J. F. “Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine.” 1984 Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spaccapietra, S. View Integration with the ERC Approach. University of Bourgogne-IUT, France. Research Report No. 8802. 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spaccapietra, S. and C. Parent. View Integration: a step forward in solving structural conflicts. Laboratoire de Bases de Donnees, Dept. d'informatique, Ecole Polutechnique Federale de Lausanne. Research Report. 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wangler, B. On the Use of Abstractions in Database Modeling: Propagation of Mapping Constraints under Attribute Abstraction. Department of Computer and systems Sciences, University of Stockholm. SYSLAB Report No. 61. 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • William W. Song
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul Johannesson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Janis A. BubenkoJr.
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.SYSLAB, Department of Computer and Systems SciencesRoyal Inst of Technology and Stockholm University ELECTRUM 230KistaSweden
  2. 2.Swedish Institute of Systems Development (SISU)KistaSweden

Personalised recommendations