Skip to main content

On the applicability of schema integration techniques to database interoperation

  • Session 5: Integration
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Conceptual Modeling — ER '96 (ER 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1157))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We discuss the applicability of schema integration techniques developed for tightly-coupled database interoperation to interoperation of databases stemming from different modelling contexts. We illustrate that in such an environment, it is typically quite difficult to infer the real-world semantics of remote classes from their definition in remote databases. However, defining relationships between the real-world semantics of schema elements is essential in existing schema integration techniques. We propose to base database interoperation in such environments on instance-level semantic relationships, to be defined using what we call object comparison rules. Both the local and the remote classifications of the appropriately merged instances are maintained, allowing for the derivation of a global class hierarchy if desired.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. E. Pitoura, O. Bukhres and A. Elmagarmid, “Object orientation in multidatabase systems,” Comput. Surv., 27, no. 2, pp. 141–195, June 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W. Litwin, L. Mark and N. Roussopoulos,“Interoperability of multiple autonomous databases,” ACM Computing Surveys, 22, no. 3, pp. 267–293, Sept. 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Wiederhold, “Value-added mediation in large-scale information systems,” in IFIP Data Semantics (DS-6), Atlanta, Georgia. 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. P. Sheth and J. A. Larson, “Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous and autonomous databases,” ACM Computing Surveys, 22, no. 3, pp. 183–236, Sept. 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. Heimbigner and D. McLeod, “A federated architecture for information management,” ACM Trans. Off. Inf. Syst., 3, no. 3, pp. 253–278, July 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Batini, M. Lenzerini and S. B. Navathe,“A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration,” ACM Computing Surveys, 18, no. 4, Dec. 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  7. S. Spaccapietra and C. Parent, “View integration: A step forward in solving structural conflicts,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. & Data0 Eng., 6, no. 2, pp. 258–274, Apr. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E-P. Lim, J. Srivastava, S. Prabhakar and J. Richardson, “Entity identification in database integration,” in Proceedings Ninth International Conference on Data Engineering, Vienna, Austria, Apr. 19–23, 1993. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 294–301, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. W-S. Li and C. Clifton, “Semantic integration in heterogeneous databases using neural networks,” in Proceedings of Twentieth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Santiago, Chile, Sept. 12–15, 1994, J. Bocca, M. Jarke and C. Zaniolo, Eds. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 1–12, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Garcia-Solaco, F. Saltor and M. Castellanos, “A structure based schema integration methodology,” in Proceedings Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, Mar. 6–10, 1995. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 505–512, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. P. Chen, “The entity-relationship model — Towards a unified view of data,” ACM Trans. Database Syst., 1, no. 1, pp. 9–36, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Sheth and V. Kashyap, “So far (schematically) yet so near (semantically),” in IFIP Interoperable Database Systems (DS-5), Lorne, Victoria, Australia, 16–20 November, 1992. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 283–312, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Garcia-Solaco, F. Saltor and M. Castellanos,“Semantic heterogeneity in multidatabase systems,” in Object-oriented multidatabase systems, O. A. Bukhres and A. K. Elmagarmid, Eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 129–195, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. V. Mannino, S. B. Navathe and W. Effelsberg, “A rule-based approach for merging generalization hierarchies,” Inf. Syst., 13, no. 3, pp. 257–272, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Y. Dupont, “Resolving fragmentation conflicts in schema integration,” in 13th International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach. New York-Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 513–532, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. R. Krishnamurthy, W. Litwin and W. Kent, “Interoperability of heterogeneous databases with schematic discrepancies,” in Proc. First Intl. Workshop on Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems. Montvale, NJ: IEEE Press, pp. 144–151, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  17. W. Kent, “Solving domain mismatch and schema mismatch problems with an object-oriented database programming language,” in Proceedings of Seventeenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 3–6, 1991, G.M. Lohman, A. Sernadas and R. Camps, Eds. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 147–160, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  18. U. Dayal and H-Y. Hwang, “View definition and generalization for database integra-tion in a multidatabase system,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 10, no. 6, pp. 628–645, Nov. 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. Kuehn and T. Ludwig,“VIP-MDBS: A logic multidatabase system,” in Proceedings of International Symposium on Databases in Paralleland Distributed Systems, Austin, Texas, Dec. 5–7, 1988, S. Jajodia, W. Kim and A. Silberschatz, Eds. Montvale, NJ: IEEE Press, pp. 190–201, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. H. Scholl, H-J. Schek and M. Tresch, “Object algebra and views for multiobjectbases,” in Distributed object management, M. T. Oszu, U. Dayal and P. Valduriez, Eds. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 353–374, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  21. H. Garcia-Molina, Y. Papakonstantinou, D. Quass, A. Rajaraman, Y. Sagiv, J. Ullman and J. Widom, “The TSIMMIS approach to mediation: Data models and languages,” Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  22. V. S. Subrahmanian, S. Aldali, A. Brink, R. Emery, J. J. Lu, A. Rajput, T. Rogers, R. Ross and C. Ward,“HERMES: A heterogeneous reasoning and mediator system,” University of Maryland, Maryland, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. D. Fang, S. Ghandeharizadeh, D. McLeod and A. Si,“The design, implementation, and evaluation of an object-based sharing mechanism for federated database systems,” in Proceedings Ninth International Conference on Data Engineering, Vienna, Austria, Apr. 19–23, 1993. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 467–475, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. W. W. Vermeer and P. M. G. Apers,“The role of integrity constraints in database interoperation,” in Proceedings 22nd International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB'96), Bombay, India. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Bernhard Thalheim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Vermeer, M.W.W., Apers, P.M.G. (1996). On the applicability of schema integration techniques to database interoperation. In: Thalheim, B. (eds) Conceptual Modeling — ER '96. ER 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1157. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019923

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0019923

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61784-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70685-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics