2002
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45816-6_31
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Global Schema Generation Using Formal Ontologies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Requirement analysis, which is based on the i* framework to represent user requirements; 2. Source integration, which produces an integrated schema by reconciling data sources using an ontological approach [27,28,29,30]. 3.…”
Section: Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Requirement analysis, which is based on the i* framework to represent user requirements; 2. Source integration, which produces an integrated schema by reconciling data sources using an ontological approach [27,28,29,30]. 3.…”
Section: Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…COMA++ (Aumueller et al 2005) supports multiple matchers and also uses a taxonomy that acts as an intermediate ontology for schema or ontology matching. (Hakimpour et al 2002) merges different ontologies into a single global schema, using similarity relations. (Embley et al 2004) uses a combination of structural similarity between two schemas and also a domain-specific ontology to discover mappings.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other proposals, such as those by Magnani et al [14] and Hakimpour [7] et al, correspondences are defined as extentional constraints between the elements of two schemas. For example, correspondences of this form can be used to specify that the extent of a relation is covered by the extent of another relation.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, correspondences can be used to relate one element of a given schema to one element of another schema, e.g., Sint .Staff , S1 .Employee , or to relate multiple elements of one schema to one element of another schema, e.g., the correspondence Sint .Staff , {S1 .Employee, S1 .Department} states that the relation Staff in the integration schema is semantically equivalent to some combination of the relations Employee and Department of the source schema S 1 . There are several models for drawing schematic correspondences in the literature [17,7,14,12], of which the model proposed by Kim et al [12] is perhaps the most comprehensive. In the second phase of mapping specification, the views that implement the mappings necessary for rewriting the queries issued against the integration schema into queries over the schemas of the sources are specified.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%