Advertisement

Using Ontologies for Semantic Data Integration

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
  • Domenico Lembo
  • Maurizio Lenzerini
  • Antonella PoggiEmail author
  • Riccardo Rosati
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Big Data book series (SBD, volume 31)

Abstract

While big data analytics is considered as one of the most important paths to competitive advantage of today’s enterprises, data scientists spend a comparatively large amount of time in the data preparation and data integration phase of a big data project. This shows that data integration is still a major challenge in IT applications. Over the past two decades, the idea of using semantics for data integration has become increasingly crucial, and has received much attention in the AI, database, web, and data mining communities. Here, we focus on a specific paradigm for semantic data integration, called Ontology-Based Data Access (OBDA). The goal of this paper is to provide an overview of OBDA, pointing out both the techniques that are at the basis of the paradigm, and the main challenges that remain to be addressed.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Abiteboul, O. Duschka, Complexity of answering queries using materialized views, in Proceedings of the PODS (1998), pp. 254–265Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, V. Vianu, Foundations of Databases (Addison Wesley Publ. Co., Reading, 1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Ahmeti, D. Calvanese, A. Polleres, V. Savenkov, Handling inconsistencies due to class disjointness in sparql updates, in Proceedings of the ESWC. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9678 (Springer, Berlin, 2016), pp. 387–404Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Allemang, J. Hendler, Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist: Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Antonioli, F. Castanò, S. Coletta, S. Grossi, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, A. Poggi, E. Virardi, and P. Castracane. Ontology-based data management for the italian public debt, in Proceedings of the FOIS (2014), pp. 372–385Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Artale, D. Calvanese, R. Kontchakov, M. Zakharyaschev, The DL-Lite family and relations. JAIR 36, 1–69 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, P.F. Patel-Schneider (eds.), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Botoeva, D. Calvanese, B. Cogrel, M. Rezk, G. Xiao, Obda beyond relational dbs: a study for mongodb, in Proceedings of the DL, CEUR, vol. 1577 (2016), http://ceur-ws.org
  9. 9.
    F. Brasileiro, J.P.A. Almeida, V.A. Carvalho, G. Guizzardi, Expressive multi-level modeling for the semantic web, in Proceedings of the Part I, The Semantic Web - ISWC 2016 - 15th International Semantic Web Conference, Kobe, Japan, 17–21 October, 2016 (2016), pp. 53–69Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Bursztyn, F. Goasdoué, I. Manolescu, Teaching an RDBMS about ontological constraints. PVLDB 9(12), 1161–1172 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Calì, G. Gottlob, T. Lukasiewicz, A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. J. Web Semant. 14, 57–83 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Calvanese, B. Cogrel, S. Komla-Ebri, R. Kontchakov, D. Lanti, M. Rezk, M. Rodriguez-Muro, G. Xiao, Ontop: answering SPARQL queries over relational databases. Sem. Web J. 8(3), 471–487 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, A. Poggi, R. Rosati, M. Ruzzi, Data integration through DL-Lite \(_{\cal{A}}\) ontologies, in Revised Selected Papers of the 3rd International Workshop on Semantics in Data and Knowledge Bases (SDKB 2008), vol. 4925, LNCS, ed. by K.-D. Schewe, B. Thalheim (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 26–47Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, R. Rosati, Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: the DL-Lite family. JAR 39(3), 385–429 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, R. Rosati, Data complexity of query answering in description logics. AIJ 195, 335–360 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, R. Rosati, M. Ruzzi, Using OWL in data integration, in Semantic Web Information Management - A Model-Based Perspective (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 397–424Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, R. Rosati, Description logic framework for information integration, in Proceedings of the KR (1998), pp. 2–13Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Chortaras, D. Trivela, G.B. Stamou, Optimized query rewriting for OWL 2 QL, in Proceedings of the CADE (2011), pp. 192–206Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Console, M. Lenzerini, Data quality in ontology-based data access: the case of consistency, in Proceedings of the AAAI (2014), pp. 1020–1026Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Das, S. Sundara, R. Cyganiak, R2RML: RDB to RDF mapping language. W3C Recommendation, W3C (2012), http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/
  21. 21.
    G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, A. Poggi, R. Rosati, On instance-level update and erasure in description logic ontologies. JLC Spec. Issue Ontol. Dyn. 19(5), 745–770 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. Di Pinto, G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, R. Rosati, Ontology-based data access with dynamic TBoxes in DL-Lite, in Proceedings of the AAAI (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. Di Pinto, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, R. Mancini, A. Poggi, R. Rosati, M. Ruzzi, D.F. Savo, Optimizing query rewriting in ontology-based data access, in Proceedings of the EDBT (ACM Press, 2013), pp. 561–572Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Eiter, M. Ortiz, M. Simkus, T.-K. Tran, G. Xiao, Query rewriting for Horn-SHIQ plus rules (AAAI Press, In Proc. of AAAI, 2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Gottlob, S. Kikot, R. Kontchakov, V.V. Podolskii, T. Schwentick, M. Zakharyaschev, The price of query rewriting in ontology-based data access. AIJ 213, 42–59 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Grüninger, Guide to the ontology of the process specification language, in Handbook of Ontologies, ed. by S. Staab, R. Studer (Springer, Berlin, 2003), pp. 575–592Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    V. Gutiérrez-Basulto, Y.A. Ibáñez-García, R. Kontchakov, E.V. Kostylev, Queries with negation and inequalities over lightweight ontologies. J. Web Semant. 35, 184–202 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    E. Kharlamov, D. Zheleznyakov, D. Calvanese, Capturing model-based ontology evolution at the instance level: the case of DL-Lite. JCSS 79(6), 835–872 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Kontchakov, C. Lutz, D. Toman, F. Wolter, M. Zakharyaschev, The combined approach to ontology-based data access, in Proceedings of the IJCAI (2011), pp. 2656–2661Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Leitsch, The Resolution Calculus (Springer, Berlin, 1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Lembo, D. Pantaleone, V. Santarelli, D.F. Savo, Easy OWL drawing with the graphol visual ontology language, in Proceedings of the KR (2016), pp. 573–576Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Lembo, D. Pantaleone, V. Santarelli, D.F. Savo, Eddy: a graphical editor for OWL 2 ontologies, in Proceedings of the IJCAI (2016), pp. 4252–4253Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Lenzerini, Data integration: a theoretical perspective, in Proceedings of the PODS (2002), pp. 233–246Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Lenzerini, L. Lepore, A. Poggi, Answering metaqueries over hi (OWL 2 QL) ontologies, in Proceedings of the IJCAI (2016), pp. 1174–1180Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Lenzerini, L. Lepore, A. Poggi, A higher-order semantics for metaquerying in OWL 2 QL, in Proceedings of the KR (2016), pp. 577–580Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    A.Y. Levy, A.O. Mendelzon, Y. Sagiv, D. Srivastava, Answering queries using views, in Proceedings of the PODS (1995), pp. 95–104Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    B. Marnette, G. Mecca, P. Papotti, S. Raunich, D. Santoro, ++spicy: an opensource tool for second-generation schema mapping and data exchange. PVLDB 4(12), 1438–1441 (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    B. Motik, A. Fokoue, I. Horrocks, Z. Wu, C. Lutz, B. Cuenca Grau, OWL Web Ontology Language profiles. W3C Recommendation, W3C (2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-profiles/
  39. 39.
    M.A. Musen, The Protégé project: a look back and a look forward. AI Matters 1(4), 4–12 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    N.F. Noy, A. Doan, A.Y. Halevy, Semantic integration (editorial). AI Mag. 26(1), 7 (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    H. Pérez-Urbina, I. Horrocks, B. Motik, Efficient query answering for OWL 2, in Proceedings of the ISWC. LNCS, vol. 5823 (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 489–504Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    A. Poggi, D. Lembo, D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, R. Rosati, Linking data to ontologies. J. Data Sem. X, 133–173 (2008)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    L. Popa, Y. Velegrakis, R.J. Miller, M.A. Hernández, R. Fagin, Translating web data, in Proceedings of the VLDB (2002), pp. 598–609Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    E. Rahm, P.A. Bernstein, An online bibliography on schema evolution. SIGMOD Rec. 35(4), 30–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    M. Rodríguez-Muro, D. Calvanese, Dependencies: making ontology based data access work in practice, in Proceedings of the AMW. CEUR, vol. 749 (2011), http://ceur-ws.org
  46. 46.
    R. Rosati, A. Almatelli, Improving query answering over DL-Lite ontologies, in Proceedings of the KR (2010), pp. 290–300Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    J.D. Ullman, Information integration using logical views, in Proceedings of the ICDT. LNCS, vol. 1186 (Springer, Berlin, 1997), pp. 19–40Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    F. Zablith, G. Antoniou, M. D’Aquin, G. Flouris, H. Kondylakis, E. Motta, D. Plexousakis, M. Sabou, Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 30(1), 45–75 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
    • 1
  • Domenico Lembo
    • 1
  • Maurizio Lenzerini
    • 1
  • Antonella Poggi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Riccardo Rosati
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria InformaticaAutomatica e Gestionale Sapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations