2. Content Semantic Information Integration
crossvision Information Integrator
Use Case Customer Information
Experiences
Waterfeld
/ / 2

3. Getting Information customer sales Support Management existing manual
needed
Information in vielen verschiedenen Systemen
Oft nur 1 existierende
Innerhalb Firma noch irgendwie manuell
Aber bei Kunden geht es gar nicht
Legacy
CRM
ERP
SFA
logistics
Waterfeld
/ / 3

4. Information heterogeneity
Heterogenous data sources
Technical heterogeneity
Different formats
Incomplete data
Redundant data
Different access system
Different user interfaces
Different Semantic
Formate fängt an bei Dezimalzahlen . Und ,
Datumsformate,
Unvollständige Daten, für 1 Kunde Telefon, für anderen pro Informationsquelle
noch mehr pro Informationsquelle:
Redundante Daten: Änderung nur an 1 Stelle
Verschiedene Bedeutung: sehr häufig, anspruchsvolles Problem
Waterfeld
/ / 4

5. Semantic Information Integration
Current technologies
EAI
ETL (data warehouse)
Information Integration
Direct access
Integrated information model
Semantic Information Integration
Ontologies as integrated information modell
Ontologies
Mapping
Mapping
Mapping
Waterfeld
/ / 5

6. Layered Ontology Approach
views
integration ontology
manual mappings
automatic mappings
source ontologies
sources
<article>
<articleid>a-5634</articleid>
<category>printer</category>
<name>hp81</name>
<price currency=‘USD’>500</price>
<producer>hp</producer>
<resolution>1960 dpi</resolution>
<type>laser</type> ….
</article>
Waterfeld
/ / 6

7. crossvision Information Integrator
Studio
(Eclipse-based)
Web Service
Semantic Server
CentraSite Repository
Query
Queries
Ontologies
Load
Ontologies
Mapping
Metadata
User Security
WebDAV
JAXR
UDDI
XML
Tables
WSDL
ADA
Waterfeld
/ / 7

8. Usage Information Integrator
Application
Query Builder
Deploy
Web Service
End
Web Service
Integrator Studio
Integration Ontology
Semantic Server
Source Ontology
Mapping to
Source Ontologies
Import Metadata
Start
Metadata
Waterfeld
/ / 8

9. Use Case: Customer Information Gateway
Does a customer raising a support issue for a specific product have a valid maintenance contract for that product?
What is a customer‘s experience with our products?
Adabas
Customer Information System
SQL
Support Information System
Situation at beginning of project
2 systems consisting of databases and applications
Sometimes user mainly working with one system, e.g. support engineer, is interested in questions that can only be answered by the other system.
So, systems are somehow related to each other, somebody knows, how to combine data but this is not automatically available
client
contact information
contract
customer
contact information
support case
Waterfeld
/ / 9

10. Customer Information Gateway – Source ontologies
Class „File151“
property „AA“ type integer
property „AB“ type date
property „AC“ type date
property „AD“ type string …
Class „File87“
Class „CUSTOMER“
property „cid“ type integer …
Class „CASE“
property „desc“ type string
property „cust “ type integer
property „belongsTo“ type „CUSTOMER“
Customer Information System (Adabas)
Support Information System (SQL)
File 151
Fields „AA“, „AB“, „AC“, „AE“
File 87
Fields „AA“, „AB“, „AC“
DATA SOURCE IMPORT
Source ontologies
Contain rule with built-in predicate which implement access to external data sources
Translation of foreign keys
No such foreign keys with adabas
Open issue: user access information
Table „CUSTOMER“
Table „CASE“
Waterfeld
/ / 10

11. Automatic Source ontology mapping
FORALL X,Y
c(“FILE151”, X):FILE151_CONTRACT[FILE151_AA->X; FILE151_AE->Y]
<- accessToSource(connectionInfo, “FILE151”, “AA”, X, “AE”,
FORALL X, Y, Z c(“FILE152”, X):FILE152_CLIENT
[FILE152_AA->X; FILE152_AB->Y; FILE152_AC->Z]
<- accessToSource(connectionInfo, “FILE152”,
“AA”, X, “AB”, Y, “AC”,
FORALL X, Y, Z
c(“CUSTOMER”, X):CUSTOMER[id->X; name->Y; addr->Z]
<- accessToSource(connectionInfo, “CUSTOMER”,
“id”, X, “name”, Y, “addr”, Z)
FORALL X,Y,Z
c(“CASE”, X):CASE[caseId->X; status->Y; customerId -> Z]
<- accessToSource(connectionInfo, ”CASE”,
“caseId”, X, “status”, Y; “customerId”, Z)
Waterfeld
/ / 11

12. Integration Ontology Class Customer Class Contract
property id property contractId
property name property contractEndDate
property address property contractor
Class SupportRequest
property id
property status
property issuedBy
File 151 -> Contract
AA -> contractId
AB -> contractStartDate
AC -> contractEndDate
AD -> contractStatus
File 87 -> Client …
Class „File151“
Class „File 87“
Class „CUSTOMER“
Class „CASE“
Mapping source ontologies to business ontologie
Using application/designer know-how
Adabas
SQL
Waterfeld
/ / 12

13. Integration Ontology Mapping
Class and property mapping
FORALL X, Y, Z
X:Contract[contractId->Y;
<- X:FILE151_CONTRACT[
FILE151_AA->Y;
Object property mapping
FORALL X, Y, Z1, Z2
X:SupportRequest[issuedBy->c(“Customer”, Z1,
<-
and c(“CUSTOMER”,Y)[name->Z1;
Waterfeld
/ / 13

14. Customer Information Gateway - Mapping
Class Customer Class Contract
property id property contractId
property name property contractEndDate
property address property contractor
Class SupportRequest
property id
property status
property issuedBy
Object identity
Data type transformations
Encoding of values
Generation of object references
Generation of inverse references
N:M relations
Class „File151“
Class „File 87“
Class „CUSTOMER“
Class „CASE“
Mapping issues
Surrogate values might be but often are no good identifiers (SSN, SAP numbers)
Waterfeld
/ / 14

15. Mapping tool
Waterfeld
/ / 15

16. Customer Information Gateway - Queries
For given SupportRequest
search for the
corresponding Contract
Class Customer Class Contract
property id property contractId
property name property contractEndDate
property address property contractor
Class SupportRequest
property id
property status
property issuedBy
Use one language for modeling and querying
Queries for data access (like database queries)
Explanations (only) if it does not work.
Waterfeld
/ / 16

17. Experiences: Problems
F-Logic functionality
Basic datatypes (primitive XML Schema types)
Mapping F-Logic to XML
Processing of nested hierarchical lists in F-Logic
order
Null values
User adoption
No rule language standard
F-Logic syntax too cryptic, not keyword-oriented
Only possible via tools e.g. graphical rules editor
No accepted ontology and rule model API
Utilizing query capabilities of data sources
Stratification needed due to recursive subclass definition
Waterfeld
/ / 17

18. Benefits Query language as sublanguage of rule language
High expressiveness of rule language for ontology mapping
Adding additional knowledge to integration ontology
Ontologies as executable models for information integration
Waterfeld
/ / 18