Merging Models Based on Given Correspondences Rachel A. Pottinger Philip A. Bernstein.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Relational Database and Data Modeling
Advertisements

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley Chapter 5 More SQL: Complex Queries, Triggers, Views, and Schema Modification.
Chapter 2 Entity-Relationship Data Modeling: Tools and Techniques
The Relational Model and Relational Algebra Nothing is so practical as a good theory Kurt Lewin, 1945.
Database Processing: Fundamentals, Design, and Implementation, 9/e by David M. KroenkeChapter 5/1 Copyright © 2004 Please……. No Food Or Drink in the class.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley Chapter 5 More SQL: Complex Queries, Triggers, Views, and Schema Modification.
Reducing the Cost of Validating Mapping Compositions by Exploiting Semantic Relationships Eduard C. Dragut Ramon Lawrence Eduard C. Dragut Ramon Lawrence.
An Extensible System for Merging Two Models Rachel Pottinger University of Washington Supervisors: Phil Bernstein and Alon Halevy.
CMPT 354, Simon Fraser University, Fall 2008, Martin Ester 52 Database Systems I Relational Algebra.
Interactive Generation of Integrated Schemas Laura Chiticariu et al. Presented by: Meher Talat Shaikh.
Fundamentals, Design, and Implementation, 9/e COS 346 Day 8.
Visual Web Information Extraction With Lixto Robert Baumgartner Sergio Flesca Georg Gottlob.
Fundamentals, Design, and Implementation, 9/e Chapter 5 Database Design.
PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment Natalya Fridman Noy and Mark A. Musen.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 5 Understanding Entity Relationship Diagrams.
Keys For XML Peter Buneman Susan Davidson Wenfei Fan Carmem Hara Wang Chiew Tan.
PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment Natalya F. Noy and Mark A. Musen.
Fundamentals, Design, and Implementation, 9/e COS 346 Day 2.
Page 1 Multidatabase Querying by Context Ramon Lawrence, Ken Barker Multidatabase Querying by Context.
Database Systems More SQL Database Design -- More SQL1.
QoM: Qualitative and Quantitative Measure of Schema Matching Naiyana Tansalarak and Kajal T. Claypool (Kajal Claypool - presenter) University of Massachusetts,
Rutgers University Relational Algebra 198:541 Rutgers University.
Modeling and Evaluation. Modeling Information system model –User perspective of data elements and functions –Use case scenarios or diagrams Entity model.
CSCD343- Introduction to databases- A. Vaisman1 Relational Algebra.
ANHAI DOAN ALON HALEVY ZACHARY IVES Chapter 6: General Schema Manipulation Operators PRINCIPLES OF DATA INTEGRATION.
Relational Algebra, R. Ramakrishnan and J. Gehrke (with additions by Ch. Eick) 1 Relational Algebra.
CSE 590DB: Database Seminar Autumn 2002: Meta Data Management Phil Bernstein Microsoft Research.
A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching Erhard Rahm, Universität für Informatik, Leipzig Philip A. Bernstein, Microsoft Research VLDB 2001.
A Unified Framework for the Semantic Integration of XML Databases
An Approach to Task Modelling for User Interface Design Costin Pribeanu National Institute for Research and Development in Informatics, Bucureşti, Romania.
 Copyright 2005 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved. Towards Translating between XML and WSML based on mappings between.
CSE314 Database Systems More SQL: Complex Queries, Triggers, Views, and Schema Modification Doç. Dr. Mehmet Göktürk src: Elmasri & Navanthe 6E Pearson.
Database Processing: Fundamentals, Design and Implementation, 9/e by David M. KroenkeChapter 2/1 Copyright © 2004 Please……. No Food Or Drink in the class.
A Z Approach in Validating ORA-SS Data Models Scott Uk-Jin Lee Jing Sun Gillian Dobbie Yuan Fang Li.
What is MOF? The Meta Object Facility (MOF) specification provides a set of CORBA interfaces that can be used to define and manipulate a set of interoperable.
An Algebra for Composing Access Control Policies (2002) Author: PIERO BONATTI, SABRINA DE CAPITANI DI, PIERANGELA SAMARATI Presenter: Siqing Du Date:
Semantic Enrichment of Ontology Mappings: A Linguistic-based Approach Patrick Arnold, Erhard Rahm University of Leipzig, Germany 17th East-European Conference.
SaveUML System design. System overview Possible...
Minor Thesis A scalable schema matching framework for relational databases Student: Ahmed Saimon Adam ID: Award: MSc (Computer & Information.
RRXS Redundancy reducing XML storage in relations O. MERT ERKUŞ A. ONUR DOĞUÇ
Requirements as Usecases Capturing the REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION TEST.
An Ontological Framework for Web Service Processes By Claus Pahl and Ronan Barrett.
Slide Chapter 5 The Relational Data Model and Relational Database Constraints.
Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 459–468 Multi-level fuzzy mining with multiple minimum supports Yeong-Chyi Lee, Tzung-Pei Hong, Tien-Chin Wang.
Database Systems Design, Implementation, and Management Coronel | Morris 11e ©2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or.
1 Resolving Schematic Discrepancy in the Integration of Entity-Relationship Schemas Qi He Tok Wang Ling Dept. of Computer Science School of Computing National.
Metadata Driven Aspect Specification Ricardo Ferreira, Ricardo Raminhos Uninova, Portugal Ana Moreira Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal 7th International.
 CONACT UC:  Magnific training   
Of 24 lecture 11: ontology – mediation, merging & aligning.
Computer Systems Architecture Edited by Original lecture by Ian Sunley Areas: Computer users Basic topics What is a computer?
XML Databases Presented By: Pardeep MT15042 Anurag Goel MT15006.
More SQL: Complex Queries, Triggers, Views, and Schema Modification
Logical Database Design and the Rational Model
Chapter 5 Database Design
XACML and the Cloud.
Potter’s Wheel: An Interactive Data Cleaning System
Web Ontology Language for Service (OWL-S)
Computing Full Disjunctions
Business Process Measures
Relational Algebra Chapter 4, Part A
COS 346 Day 8.
Relational Algebra 461 The slides for this text are organized into chapters. This lecture covers relational algebra, from Chapter 4. The relational calculus.
Entity Relationship Diagrams
Towards Automatic Model Synchronization from Model Transformation
Relational Algebra Chapter 4, Sections 4.1 – 4.2
Object-Oriented Knowledge Representation
Metadata Framework as the basis for Metadata-driven Architecture
Semantic Markup for Semantic Web Tools:
Contents Preface I Introduction Lesson Objectives I-2
ONTOMERGE Ontology translations by merging ontologies Paper: Ontology Translation on the Semantic Web by Dejing Dou, Drew McDermott and Peishen Qi 2003.
Presentation transcript:

Merging Models Based on Given Correspondences Rachel A. Pottinger Philip A. Bernstein

Introduction “A model is a formal description of a complex application artifact, such as a database schema, an application interface, a UML model, an ontology, or a message format. The problem of merging such models lies at the core of many meta data applications.”

Introduction Combining models requires two steps: Determining correspondences between two models (Schema matching) Merging the models based on those correspondences Determining correspondences is a major topic of ongoing research and is not covered in this paper

Model Management Proposed by Bernstein in “Applying Model Management to Classical Meta Data Problems” Operators: Match Merge Apply Diff

Model Management Presented solution: Merge (A, B, Map AB ) A & B models Map AB = mapping of correspondences Returns “duplicate-free union” of A & B

Example - Conflict

Conflict Resolution Conflict resolution is independent of representation Existing similarities among solutions offer an opportunity for abstraction Buneman, Davidson, and Kosky (BDK) algorithm Uses pair-wise correspondences that have “Is-a” and “Has-a” relationships

Representation of Models Representation requires (at least) 3 meta-levels Model = database schema, etc Meta-model = type definitions Meta-meta-model = representation language in which models and meta- models are expressed

Inputs: Merge (A, B, Map AB ) Two models: A & B Mapping: Map AB First-class models, elements and relationships Mapping elements, origins of additional mapping relationships Non-mapping elements Equality and similarity mapping elements Optional designation of preferred model Optional overrides for Merge behavior

Complicated Mapping Non-mapping element Similarity Mapping

Mapping Result Result = “a schema that presents all the information of the schemas being merged, but no additional information” Resulting model, G, satisfies Generic Merge Requirements

Conflict Resolution Conflicts categorized based on meta- level Representation conflicts Meta-model conflicts Fundamental conflicts

Representation Conflicts Occurs when two models describe the same concept in different ways Example, Name represented as ActorName vs. FirstName & LastName Different possible outputs Solutions: Concepts the same based off equality mapping elements Related based of meta-meta-model relationships and elements, FirstName sub element of ActorName Related in more complex fashion beyond meta- meta-model representation, ActorName equals the concatenation of FirstName and LastName

Meta-Model Conflicts Merge result violates meta-model- specific constraint SQL table and XML database are merged into a SQL model, there will be no concept of a sub column EnforceConstaints operator requires merge results to conform to a given meta-model.

Fundamental Conflicts Meta-meta-model conflicts Merge result violates meta-meta-model rules and cannot be considered a model

Fundamental Conflicts Example Meta-meta-model rule: one-type restriction Merge allowed actions: Specify an alternative function to apply for each conflict resolution category Resolve the conflict manually

Cardinality Constraints Maximum and minimum occurrences of relations often restricted

Acyclicity Models often required to be acyclic Cycles introduced in merging are collapsed into a single element by default User can override default behavior

The Merge Algorithm Initialize result G to null Include Elements with equivalence relation Combine element properties Combine and include relationships Fundamental conflict resolution

Merge Steps ActorNameActorIDSim Bio Actor BioFirstNameLastName ID: History: HowRelated: Name: Etc… ID: History: HowRelated: Name: Etc… ID: History: HowRelated: Name: Etc… ID: History: HowRelated: Name: Etc… ID: History: HowRelated: Name: Etc… ID: History: HowRelated: Name: Etc… ID: History: HowRelated: Name: Etc… ID: History: HowRelated: Name: Etc…

Contributions Technical requirements for a generic merge operator Use of a first-class input mapping model, enabling richer correspondences Characterization of when Merge can be automatic Taxonomy of conflicts and a definition of conflict resolution strategies Experimental evaluation and results

Evaluation Merged Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA) and GALEN Common Reference Model FMA contains 895,307 elements and 2,032,020 relationships GALEN contains 155,307 elements and 569,384 relationships Significant structural differences Mapping contained to-1 correspondences Evaluation Goals: Limited changes to Merge would be needed Merge would function on models this large The merged results would not be simply read from the mapping (i.e., the conflicts anticipated would occur)

Evaluation Few non-fundamental changes had to be made Merging took aprox. 20 hours Merge results 1,045,411 elements with 9,096 duplicates 2,590,969 relationships 338 cycles, most of length 2, where found 1 cycle of length 18 was found Merged correspondences: 3 element merges: element merges: element merges: 1215

Conclusions Algorithm is well designed Merge() is implemented in a generic way that allows for different models Definitions of conflict management are given Implementation and execution was very labor intensive Slow, 13 weeks of expert work, 20 hours of processor time Relies on other systems with unknown results

Questions?

Generic Merge Requirements 1. Element preservation 2. Equality preservation 3. Relationship preservation 4. Similarity preservation 5. Meta-meta-model constraint satisfaction 6. Extraneous item prohibition 7. Property preservation 8. Value preference