The Matching Problem

  • Jérôme Euzenat
  • Pavel Shvaiko
Chapter

Abstract

In a distributed and open system, such as the semantic web and many of the applications presented in the previous chapter, heterogeneity cannot be avoided. Different actors have different interests and habits, use different tools and knowledge, and most often, at different levels of detail. These various reasons for heterogeneity lead to diverse forms of heterogeneity, and, therefore, should be carefully taken into consideration.

References

  1. Alagic, S., Bernstein, P.: A model theory for generic schema management. In: Proc. 8th International Workshop on Database Programming Languages (DBPL), Frascati, Italy. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2397, pp. 228–246 (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atencia, M., Schorlemmer, M.: An interaction-based approach to semantic alignment. J. Web Semant. 13(1), 131–147 (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atencia, M., Borgida, A., Euzenat, J., Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: A formal semantics for weighted ontology mappings. In: Proc. 11th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Boston, MA, USA. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 7649, pp. 17–33 (2012a) Google Scholar
  4. Bao, J., Voutsadakis, G., Slutzki, G., Honavar, V.: Package-based description logics. In: Stuckenschmidt, H., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.) Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization, pp. 349–371. Springer, Berlin (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Comput. Surv. 18(4), 323–364 (1986) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellahsene, Z., Bonifati, A., Rahm, E. (eds.): Schema Matching and Mapping. Data-Centric Systems and Applications. Springer, Berlin (2011) MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bench-Capon, T., Malcolm, G.: Formalising ontologies and their relations. In: Proc. 16th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA), Copenhagen, Denmark. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1677, pp. 250–259 (1999) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benerecetti, M., Bouquet, P., Ghidini, C.: Contextual reasoning distilled. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 12(3), 279–305 (2000) CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Benerecetti, M., Bouquet, P., Ghidini, C.: On the dimensions of context dependence: partiality, approximation, and perspective. In: Proc. 3rd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT), Dundee, UK. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2116, pp. 59–72 (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernstein, P., Halevy, A., Pottinger, R.: A vision of management of complex models. SIGMOD Rec. 29(4), 55–63 (2000) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bodenreider, O.: The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 267–270 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998) Google Scholar
  13. Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: assimilating information from peer sources. J. Data Semant. I, 153–184 (2003) Google Scholar
  14. Bouquet, P., Ehrig, M., Euzenat, J., Franconi, E., Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Serafini, L., Stamou, G., Sure, Y., Tessaris, S.: Specification of a common framework for characterizing alignment. Deliverable D2.2.1, Knowledge web NoE (2004a). http://knowledgeweb.semanticweb.org
  15. Breitbart, Y.: Multidatabase interoperability. SIGMOD Rec. 19(3), 53–60 (1990) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brodie, M., Mylopoulos, J., Schmidt, J.: On Conceptual Modeling. Springer, New York (1984) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M.: A framework for ontology integration. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Euzenat, J., McGuinness, D. (eds.) The Emerging Semantic Web, pp. 201–214. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002b) Google Scholar
  18. Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Logical foundations of peer-to-peer data integration. In: Proc. 23rd Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), Paris, France, pp. 241–251 (2004) Google Scholar
  19. Chalupsky, H.: OntoMorph: a translation system for symbolic knowledge. In: Proc. 7th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), Breckenridge, CO, USA, pp. 471–482 (2000) Google Scholar
  20. Chan, L.M., Comaromi, J., Mitchell, J., Satija, M.: Dewey Decimal Classification: a Practical Guide. OCLC Forest Press, Dublin (1996) Google Scholar
  21. Chen, P.: The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1), 9–36 (1976). doi:10.1145/320434.320440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chinnici, R., Moreau, J.-J., Ryman, A., Weerawarana, S. (eds.): Web Services Description Language (WSDL) version 2.0—Part 1: Core language. Recommendation, W3C (2007) Google Scholar
  23. Corcho, Ó.: A Layered Declarative Approach to Ontology Translation with Knowledge Preservation. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005) Google Scholar
  24. Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Combining OWL ontologies using \(\mathcal{E}\)-connections. J. Web Semant. 4(1), 40–59 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Euzenat, J.: Towards a principled approach to semantic interoperability. In: Proc. International Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing at the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 19–25 (2001) Google Scholar
  26. Euzenat, J.: Towards composing and benchmarking ontology alignments. In: Proc. International Workshop on Semantic Integration at the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Sanibel Island, FL, USA, pp. 165–166 (2003) Google Scholar
  27. Euzenat, J.: An API for ontology alignment. In: Proc. 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Hiroshima, Japan. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3298, pp. 698–712 (2004) Google Scholar
  28. Euzenat, J.: Semantic precision and recall for ontology alignment evaluation. In: Proc. 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Hyderabad, India, pp. 348–353 (2007) Google Scholar
  29. Euzenat, J.: Algebras of ontology alignment relations. In: Proc. 7th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Karlsruhe, Germany. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5318, pp. 387–402 (2008) Google Scholar
  30. Euzenat, J., Stuckenschmidt, H.: The ‘family of languages’ approach to semantic interoperability. In: Omelayenko, B., Klein, M. (eds.) Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web, pp. 49–63. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003) Google Scholar
  31. Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.: Reasoning About Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995) MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Franconi, E., Kuper, G., Lopatenko, A., Serafini, L.: A robust logical and computational characterisation of peer-to-peer database systems. In: Proc. International Workshop on Databases, Information Systems and Peer-to-Peer Computing (DBISP2P) at the 29th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Berlin, Germany, pp. 64–76 (2003) Google Scholar
  33. Gal, A.: Uncertain Schema Matching. Synthesis Lectures on Data Management. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael (2011) MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A.: Sweetening WordNet with DOLCE. AI Mag. 24(3), 13–24 (2003) Google Scholar
  35. Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F.: Local models semantics, or contextual reasoning = locality + compatibility. Artif. Intell. 127(2), 221–259 (2001) MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F.: A semantics for abstraction. In: Proc. 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Valencia, Spain, pp. 343–347 (2004) Google Scholar
  37. Ghidini, C., Serafini, L.: Distributed first order logics. In: Proc. 2nd Conference on Frontiers of Combining Systems (FroCoS), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 121–139 (1998) Google Scholar
  38. Giunchiglia, F., Marchese, M., Zaihrayeu, I.: Encoding classifications into lightweight ontologies. In: Proc. 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), Budva, Montenegro. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4011, pp. 80–94 (2006a) Google Scholar
  39. Goh, C.-H.: Representing and reasoning about semantic conflicts in heterogeneous information sources. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA (1997) Google Scholar
  40. Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. PhD thesis, University of Twente (2005) Google Scholar
  41. Hameed, A., Preece, A., Sleeman, D.: Ontology reconciliation. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 231–250. Springer, Berlin (2004). Chap. 12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hitzler, P., Euzenat, J., Krötzsch, M., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H., Wache, H., Zimmermann, A.: Integrated view and comparison of alignment semantics. Deliverable 2.2.5, Knowledge web NoE (2005) Google Scholar
  43. Hull, R.: Managing semantic heterogeneity in databases: a theoretical perspective. In: Proc. 16th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), Tucson, AZ, USA, pp. 51–61 (1997) Google Scholar
  44. Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18(1), 1–31 (2003b) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M., Atencia, M.: A formal foundation for ontology-alignment interaction models. Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst. 3(2), 50–68 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kashyap, V., Sheth, A.: Semantic heterogeneity in global information systems: the role of metadata, context and ontologies. In: Papazoglou, M., Schlageter, G. (eds.) Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 139–178. Academic Press, New York (1998) Google Scholar
  47. Kim, W., Seo, J.: Classifying schematic and data heterogeneity in multidatabase systems. Computer 24(12), 12–18 (1991) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Klein, M.: Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In: Proc. International Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing at the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Seattle, WA, USA (2001) Google Scholar
  49. Kutz, O., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: E-connections of abstract description systems. Artif. Intell. 156(1), 1–73 (2004) MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Lenat, D., Guha, R.: Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems. Addison Wesley, Reading (1990) Google Scholar
  51. Lenzerini, M.: Data integration: a theoretical perspective. In: Proc. 21st Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), Madison, WI, USA, pp. 233–246 (2002) Google Scholar
  52. Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Representing and reasoning about mappings between domain models. In: Proc. 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Edmonton, Canada, pp. 122–133 (2002) Google Scholar
  53. Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H., Tamilin, A.: Reasoning support for mapping revision. J. Log. Comput. 19(5), 807–829 (2009) MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Melton, J. (ed.): Information technology—database languages—SQL. ISO standard ISO/CEI 9075:2003, ISO (2003) Google Scholar
  55. Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Cuenca Grau, B. (eds.): OWL 2 web ontology language direct semantics. Recommendation, W3C (2009a) Google Scholar
  56. Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Parsia, B. (eds.): OWL 2 web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax. Recommendation, W3C (2009b) Google Scholar
  57. Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Proc. 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), Ogunquit, ME, USA, pp. 2–9 (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Noy, N., Klein, M.: Ontology evolution: not the same as schema evolution. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 6(4), 428–440 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL query language for RDF. Recommendation, W3C (2008) Google Scholar
  60. Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J. 10(4), 334–350 (2001) CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. Schuh, R.: Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1999) Google Scholar
  62. Sheth, A., Larson, J.: Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases. ACM Comput. Surv. 22(3), 183–236 (1990) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Staab, S., Studer, R.: Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies and semantics for seamless connectivity. SIGMOD Rec. 33(4), 58–64 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Visser, P., Jones, D., Bench-Capon, T., Shave, M.: Assessing heterogeneity by classifying ontology mismatches. In: Proc. 1st International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), Trento, Italy, pp. 148–162 (1998) Google Scholar
  66. Wache, H., Voegele, T., Visser, U., Stuckenschmidt, H., Schuster, G., Neumann, H., Hübner, S.: Ontology-based integration of information—a survey of existing approaches. In: Proc. International Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing at the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 108–117 (2001) Google Scholar
  67. Wooldridge, M.: Reasoning About Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000) MATHGoogle Scholar
  68. Zimmermann, A.: Logical formalisms for agreement technologies. In: Ossowski, S. (ed.) Agreement Technologies, pp. 69–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Chap. 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zimmermann, A., Euzenat, J.: Three semantics for distributed systems and their relations with alignment composition. In: Proc. 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Athens, GA, USA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4273, pp. 16–29 (2006) Google Scholar
  70. Zimmermann, A., Krötzsch, M., Euzenat, J., Hitzler, P.: Formalizing ontology alignment and its operations with category theory. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), Baltimore, MD, USA, pp. 277–288 (2006) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Euzenat
    • 1
  • Pavel Shvaiko
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA and LIGGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Informatica Trentina SpA, while at Department of Engineering and Computer Science (DISI), University of Trento, while at Web of Data, Bruno Kessler Foundation - IRSTTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations