Automatic classification of semantic concepts in view specifications

  • Ernst Ellmer
  • Christian Huemer
  • Dieter Merkl
  • Günther Pernul
Expert and Knowledge Based Systems 2
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1134)


The design of large database systems often is done by a large number of analysts with different perspectives on the problem domain. That is why the integration of multiple views in database design is a task of tremendous importance. In this paper we report on our experience in using a view comparison tool based on neural network technology. The tool automatically extracts semantic concepts from different view specifications and then transforms them into a vector representation understandable by a neural network. The network is trained and thus performs the job of clustering similar concepts. The output of our tool is a ‘first guess’ which concepts in views may overlap or which concepts do not overlap at all. The two main contributions of our tool thus are first, that the designer is relieved from the burden of manually comparing each semantic concept of the different view specifications, and second, that human interference into the view comparison process is minimized to the specification of views and the interpretation of concept clusters.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, S. B. Navathe. A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 18, No 4, pp. 323–364, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    E. Bertino. Integration of heterogeneous data repositories by using object-oriented views. Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems. Kyoto, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Biskup, B. Convent. A Formal View Integration Method. Proc. ACM Int. Conf. on Managment of Data (Sigmod), Washington, DC, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Bouzeghoub, I. Comyn-Wattiau. View Integration by Semantic Unification and Transformation of Data Structures. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach, North Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    W. Bright, A Hurson. A Taxonomy and Current Issues in Multidatabase Systems. IEEE Computer, Vol 24, No. 10, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    F. Civelek, A. Dogac, S. Spaccapietra. An expert system approach to view definition and integration. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach. Rome, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Date. An Introduction to Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. Ellmer, C. Huemer, D. Merkl, G. Pernul. Neural Network Technology to Support View Integration. Proc. 14th Int. Conference on Object-Oriented and Entity-Relationship Modelling (OO-ER'95). Gold Coast. Australia. Dec 13–15. pp. 181–190. 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Fankhauser, M. Kracker, E. Neuhold. Semantic vs. Structural Resemblance of Classes. ACM Sigmod Record, Vol. 20, No. 4, Dec. 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    P. Johannesson. A Logical Basis for Schema Integration. Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering (RIDE), IEEE Comp. Society Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    P. Johannesson. Using Conceptual Graph Theory to Support Schema Integration. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach, Springer Verlag, LNCS 823, 1994. (R. Elmasri, V. Kouramajian, B. Thalheim, Eds.).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Kaul, K. Drosten, E. Neuhold. ViewSystem: integrating heterogeneous information bases by object-oriented views. IEEE 6th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering (ICDE), Los Angeles, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    W. Kent. Solving domain mismatch and schema mismatch problems with an object-oriented database programming language. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Very Large Databases (VLDB), Barcelona, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Kohonen. Self-Organizing Maps. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. A. Larson, S. B. Navathe, R. Elmasri. A Theory of Attribute Equivalence in Databases with Applications to Schema Integration. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering (ToSE). Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 449–463, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    W.-S. Li, C. Clifton. Semantic Integration in Heterogeneous Databases Using Neural Networks. Proc. 20th VLDB Conference, Santiago, Chile, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. Motro. Superviews: Virtual Integration of Multiple Databases. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering (ToSE). Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 785–798, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. B. Navathe, S. G. Gadgil. A Methodology for View Integration in Logical Database Design. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach, North Holland, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Rumbaugh, et al. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    W. W. Song, P. Johannesson, J. Bubenko. Semantic Similarity Relations in Schema Integration. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on the Entity-Relationship Approach, Springer Verlag, LNCS 645, 1992. (G. Pernul, A M. Tjoa, Eds.).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. Spaccapietra, C. Parant, Y. Dupont. Model Independent Assertions for Integration of Heterogeneous Schemes. The VLDB Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 81–126, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernst Ellmer
    • 1
  • Christian Huemer
    • 1
  • Dieter Merkl
    • 2
  • Günther Pernul
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Applied Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaWienAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Software TechnologyVienna University of TechnologyWienAustria
  3. 3.FB 5 - Information SystemsUniversity of EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations