Advertisement

Round-Trip Engineering for Maintaining Conceptual-Relational Mappings

  • Yuan An
  • Xiaohua Hu
  • Il-Yeol Song
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5074)

Abstract

Conceptual-relational mappings between conceptual models and relational schemas have been used increasingly to achieve interoperability or overcome impedance mismatch in modern data-centric applications. However, both schemas and conceptual models evolve over time to accommodate new information needs. When the conceptual model (CM) or the schema associated with a mapping evolved, the mapping needs to be updated to reflect the new semantics in the CM/schema. In this paper, we propose a round-trip engineering solution which essentially synchronizes models by keeping them consistent for maintaining concep- tual-relational mappings. First, we define the consistency of a conceptual-relational mapping through “semantically compatible” instances. Next, we carefully analyze the knowledge encoded in the standard database design process and develop round-trip algorithms for maintaining the consistency of conceptual-relational mappings under evolution. Finally, we conduct a set of comprehensive experiments. The results show that our solution is efficient and provides significant benefits in comparison to the mapping reconstructing approach.

Keywords

Round-trip Engineering Mapping Maintenance 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Adya, A., Blakeley, J., Melnik, S., Muralidhar, S.: Anatomy of the ado.net entity framework. In: SIGMOD 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    An, Y., Borgida, A., Miller, R.J., Mylopoulos, J.: A Semantic Approach to Discovering Schema Mapping Expressions. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    An, Y., Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Constructing Complex Semantic Mappings Between XML Data and Ontologies. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 6–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    An, Y., Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Inferring Complex Semantic Mappings between Relational Tables and Ontologies from Simple Correspondences. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Ontologies, Databases, and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE), pp. 1152–1169 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    An, Y., Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Discovering the Semantics of Relational Tables through Mappings. Journal on Data Semantics VII, 1–32 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banerjee, J., et al.: Semantics and Implementation of Schema Evolution in Object-Oriented Databases. In: SIGMOD 1987 (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer, C., King, G.: Java Persistence with Hibernate. Manning Publications (November 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McBrien, P., Poulovassilis, A.: Schema Evolution in Heterogeneous Database Architectures, A Schema Transformation Approach. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Claypool, K.T., Jin, J., Rundensteiner, E.: SERF: Schema Evolution through an Extensible, Re-usable, and Flexible Framework. In: CIKM 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sartiani, C., Colazzo, D.: Mapping Maintenance in XML P2P Databases. In: Bierman, G., Koch, C. (eds.) DBPL 2005. LNCS, vol. 3774, pp. 74–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.B.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poulovassilis, A., Fan, H.: Schema Evolution in Data Warehousing Environments – A Schema Transformation-Based Approach. In: Atzeni, P., Chu, W., Lu, H., Zhou, S., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2004. LNCS, vol. 3288, pp. 639–653. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferrandina, F., Ferran, G., Meyer, T., Madec, J., Zicari, R.: Schema and Database Evolution in the O2 Object Database System. In: VLDB 1995 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hainaut, J.-L.: Database reverse engineering (1998), http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/article/hainaut98database.html
  17. 17.
    Knublauch, H., Rose, T.: Round-trip engineering of ontologies for knowledge-based systems. In: SEKE 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, A., Nica, A., Rundensteiner, E.: The eve approach: View synchronization in dynamic distributed environment. TKDE 14(5), 931–954 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lenzerini, M.: Data Integration: A Theoretical Perspective. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 233–246 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCann, R., et al.: Maveric: Mapping Maintenance for Data Integration Systems. In: VLDB 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.: An on-line bibliography on schema evolution. SIGMOD Record 35(4), 30–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sendall, S., Kuster, J.: Taming model round-trip engineering. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Best Practices for Model-Driven Software Development (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Velegrakis, Y., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Mapping Adaptation under Evolving Schemas. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data bases (VLDB), pp. 584–595 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu, C., Popa, L.: Semantic Adaptation of Schema Mappings when Schema Evolve. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data bases (VLDB) (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuan An
    • 1
  • Xiaohua Hu
    • 1
  • Il-Yeol Song
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information Science and TechnologyDrexel UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations