Soundness of Schema Matching Methods

  • M. Benerecetti
  • P. Bouquet
  • S. Zanobini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3532)


One of the key challenges in the development of open semantic-based systems is enabling the exchange of meaningful information across applications which may use autonomously developed schemata. One of the typical solutions for that problem is the definition of a mapping between pairs of schemas, namely a set of point–to–point relations between the elements of different schemas. A lot of (semi-)automatic methods for generating such mappings have been proposed. In this paper we provide a preliminary investigation on the notion of correctness for schema matching methods. In particular we define different notions of soundness, strictly depending on what dimension (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic) of the language the mappings are defined on. Finally, we discuss some preliminary conditions under which a two different notions of soundness (semantic and pragmatic) can be related.


Semantic Relation Schema Match Intended Meaning Schema Element Language Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergamaschi, S., Castano, S., Vincini, M.: Semantic integration of semistructured and structured data sources. SIGMOD Record 28(1), 54–59 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Zanobini, S.: Semantic coordination: a new approach and an application. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 130–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll, J.: Hewlett-Packard. Matching rdf graphs. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 5–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web. In: Proceedings of WWW 2002, 11th International WWW Conference, Hawaii (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Euzenat, J., Valtchev, P.: An integrativive proximity measure for ontology alignment. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Semantic Integration (October 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giunchiglia, F., Shvaiko, P.: Semantic matching. The Knowledge Engineering Review Journal 18(3), 265–280 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giunchiglia, F., Shvaiko, P., Yatskevich, M.: S-Match: an algorithm and an implementation of semantic matching. In: Bussler, C.J., Davies, J., Fensel, D., Studer, R. (eds.) ESWS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3053, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ichisem, R., Takeda, H., Honiden, S.: Integrating multiple internet directories by instance–base learning. In: AI and Data Integration, pp. 22–28 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P.A., Rahm, E.: Generic schema matching with cupid. In: The VLDB Journal, pp. 49–58 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milo, T., Zohar, S.: Using schema matching to simplify heterogeneous data translation. In: Proc. 24th Int. Conf. Very Large Data Bases, VLDB, pp. 24–27, 122–133 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pelillo, M., Siddiqi, K., Zucker, S.W.: Matching hierarchical structures using association graphs. In: Burkhardt, H., Neumann, B. (eds.) ECCV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1407, p. 3. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Putnam, H.: Reason, Truth, and History. CUP, New York (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, J.T.-L., Zhang, K., Jeong, K., Shasha, D.: A system for approximate tree matching. Knowledge and Data Engineering 6(4), 559–571 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang, K., Wang, J.T.L., Shasha, D.: On the editing distance between undirected acyclic graphs and related problems. In: Galil, Z., Ukkonen, E. (eds.) CPM 1995. LNCS, vol. 937, pp. 395–407. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Benerecetti
    • 1
  • P. Bouquet
    • 2
  • S. Zanobini
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Physical ScienceUniversity of NaplesNapoliItaly
  2. 2.Department of Information and Communication TechnologyUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations