2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-23258-4_29
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Data Integration of Heterogeneous Data Sources Using QR Decomposition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The mediated schemas were built either manually [43], semi-automatically [40,44,45], or automatically [41,42,[46][47][48][49][50][51]. The manual method is a time-consuming and inefficient solution in the case of big data, especially in the case of big data having many data sources with a massive number of attributes and relations.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The mediated schemas were built either manually [43], semi-automatically [40,44,45], or automatically [41,42,[46][47][48][49][50][51]. The manual method is a time-consuming and inefficient solution in the case of big data, especially in the case of big data having many data sources with a massive number of attributes and relations.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some research used upper-layer ontology to handle the semantics in the mediated schema building. One of the studies [40] used WordNet ontology as a base in finding the concepts synonyms, while other research [44,46,50] used domain ontology for the same purpose.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Specific application based data integration techniques include [13,14,22,23]. These techniques are focused on integrating data for knowledge processing in specific application scenarios.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A semantic similarity measure is a function that takes two GO terms or two sets of terms representing the annotations of two entities and returns a numerical value representing the closeness in meaning between them [6]. Standard SSMs such as Palmer's [7], cosine similarities [7, 8], and semantic proximity [9, 10] are suitable for some fields of study but are inaccurate for calculating semantic similarity between objects in other fields. In the field of biology, for example, comparing GO annotation terms is not enough; therefore, semantic similarity is measured by comparing features that describe the objects and the hierarchal relationships between these features [1113].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%