A Framework for XML Schema Integration via Conceptual Model

  • Jakub Klímek
  • Irena Mlýnková
  • Martin Nečaský
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6724)


Modern information systems may exploit numerous XML schemas for communication which causes problems with integration and evolution. Manual integration and management of evolution of the XML formats may be very hard. In this paper, we experiment with our novel method exploiting a conceptual diagram and we present our results. We introduce a framework which helps a domain expert to map the XML formats to the conceptual diagram. It can be configured to use various similarities of the formats and diagram and it can adjust them on the basis of the input from the expert. The result is a precise mapping. The diagram then integrates the XML formats and facilitates their evolution.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Algergawy, A., Nayak, R., Saake, G.: XML Schema Element Similarity Measures: A Schema Matching Context. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5871, pp. 1246–1253. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    An, Y., Hu, X., Song, I.-Y.: Round-trip engineering for maintaining conceptual-relational mappings. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 296–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen, W.W., Ravikumar, P., Fienberg, S.E.: A Comparison of String Distance Metrics for Name-Matching Tasks. In: IJCAI 2003 Workshop on Information Integration, AAAI, Menlo Park (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Meo, P., Quattrone, G., Terracina, G., Ursino, D.: Integration of XML Schemas at Various ”Severity” Levels. Inf. Syst. 31(6), 397–434 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Do, H.H., Rahm, E.: COMA – A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches. In: VLDB 2002, pp. 610–621. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    dos Santos Mello, R., Heuser, C.A.: A Bottom-Up Approach for Integration of XML Sources. In: Workshop on Information Integration on the Web, pp. 118–124 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bray, T., et al.: Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0, 4th edn. W3C (2006),
  8. 8.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P.A., Rahm, E.: Generic Schema Matching with Cupid. In: VLDB 2001, pp. 49–58. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller, G.A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., Miller, K.J.: Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database. Lexicography 3(4), 235–244 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, J., Mukerji, J.: MDA Guide Version 1.0.1. Object Management Group (2003),
  12. 12.
    Nečaský, M.: Conceptual Modeling for XML. Dissertations in Database and Information Systems Series, vol. 99. IOS Press/AKA Verlag (January 2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nečaský, M.: Reverse Engineering of XML Schemas to Conceptual Diagrams. In: APCCM 2009, pp. 117–128. Australian Computer Society, Wellington (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nečaský, M., Mlýnková, I.: On Different Perspectives of XML Schema Evolution. In: FlexDBIST 2009, pp. 422–426. IEEE, Linz (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group. UML Infrastructure Specification 2.1.2 (November 2007),
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group. UML Superstructure Specification 2.1.2 (November 2007),
  17. 17.
    Passi, K., Lane, L., Madria, S.K., Sakamuri, B.C., Mohania, M., Bhowmick, S.S.: A model for XML schema integration. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2002. LNCS, vol. 2455, pp. 193–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reynaud, C., Sirot, J.-P., Vodislav, D.: Semantic Integration of XML Heterogeneous Data Sources. In: IDEAS 2001, pp. 199–208. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodríguez-Gianolli, P., Mylopoulos, J.: A semantic approach to XML-based data integration. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 117–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: A Survey of Schema-based Matching Approaches. Data Semantics 4, 146–171 (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sorrentino, S., Bergamaschi, S., Gawinecki, M., Po, L.: Schema normalization for improving schema matching. In: Laender, A.H.F., Castano, S., Dayal, U., Casati, F., de Oliveira, J.P.M. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5829, pp. 280–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xiao, L., Zhang, L., Huang, G., Shi, B.: Automatic Mapping from XML Documents to Ontologies. In: CIT 2004, pp. 321–325. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yang, X., Li Lee, M., Ling, T.-W.: Resolving structural conflicts in the integration of XML schemas: A semantic approach. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 520–533. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu, C., Popa, L.: Semantic Adaptation of Schema Mappings when Schemas Evolve. In: VLDB 2005, pp. 1006–1017. VLDB Endowment (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakub Klímek
    • 1
  • Irena Mlýnková
    • 1
  • Martin Nečaský
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software EngineeringCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations