Advertisement

Non-destructive Integration of Form-Based Views

  • Jan Hidders
  • Jan Paredaens
  • Philippe Thiran
  • Geert-Jan Houben
  • Kees van Hee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3631)

Abstract

Form documents or screen forms bring essential information on the data manipulated by an organization. They can be considered as different but often overlapping views of its whole data. This paper presents a non-destructive approach of their integration. The main idea of our approach is to keep the original views intact and to specify constraints between overlapping structures. For reasoning over constraints, we provide a set of inference rules that allows not only to infer implied constraints but also to detect conflicts. These reasoning rules are proved to be sound and complete. Although the form-based views are hierarchical structures, our constraints and reasoning rules can also be used in non-hierarchical data models.

Keywords

Inference Rule Description Logic Cardinality Constraint Reasoning Rule Original View 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.B.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Comput. Surv. 18, 323–364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shipman, D.W.: The functional data model and the data language DAPLEX. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 6, 140–173 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halpin, T.: Information modeling and relational databases: from conceptual analysis to logical design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lenzerini, M.: Data integration: A theoretical perspective. In: PODS, pp. 233–246 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergamaschi, S., Sartori, C.: On taxonomic reasoning in conceptual design. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 17, 385–422 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Formica, A., Missikoff, M.: Inheritance processing and conflicts in structural generalization hierarchies. ACM Comput. Surv. 36, 263–290 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Information integration: Conceptual modeling and reasoning support. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 1998), pp. 280–291 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kashyap, V., Sheth, A.P.: Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects: A context-based approach. VLDB J. 5, 276–304 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Source integration in data warehousing. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 1998), pp. 192–197. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brachman, R., Schmolze, J.: An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, 171–216 (1985)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirk, T., Levy, A.Y., Sagiv, Y., Srivastava, D.: The Information Manifold. In: Knoblock, C., Levy, A. (eds.) Information Gathering from Heterogeneous, Distributed Environments. Stanford University, Stanford (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description logic framework for information integration. In: KR, pp. 2–13 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brachman, R., Levesque, H.: The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In: AAAI 1984, Austin, Texas, pp. 34–37 (1984)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J., McGuinness, D.L., Resnick, L.A.: CLASSIC: a structural data model for objects. In: Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Portland, Oregon, pp. 58–67 (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nutt, W., Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D.: The complexity of concept languages. Inf. Comput. 134, 1–58 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: A description logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies. Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 385–410 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Hidders
    • 1
  • Jan Paredaens
    • 1
  • Philippe Thiran
    • 2
  • Geert-Jan Houben
    • 2
  • Kees van Hee
    • 2
  1. 1.University of AntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations