Automatic Migration and Wrapping of Database Applications — A Schema Transformation Approach

  • Peter Mc Brien
  • Alexandra Poulovassi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1728)


Integration of heterogeneous databases requires that semantic differences between schemas are resolved by a process of schema transformation. Previously, we have developed a general framework to support the schema transformation process, consisting of a hypergraphbased common data model and a set of primitive schema transformations defined for this model. Higher-level common data models and primitive schema transformations for them can be defined in terms of this lowerlevel model.

In this paper, we show that a key feature of our framework is that both primitive and composite schema transformations are automatically reversible. We show how these transformations can be used to automatically migrate or wrap data, queries and updates between semantically equivalent schemas.We also show how to handle transformations between non-equivalent but overlapping schemas.We describe a prototype schema integration tool that supports this functionality. Finally, we briefly discuss how our approach can be extended to more sophisticated application logic such as constraints, deductive rules, and active rules.


Reverse Transformation Database Application Schema Transformation Equivalent Schema Deductive Rule 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. Navathe. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4):323–364, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.S. Chawathe, H. Garcia-Molina, J. Hammer, K. Ireland, Y. Papakonstantinou, J.D. Ullman, and J. Widom. The TSIMMIS project: Integration of heterogeneous information sources. In Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the Information Processing Society of Japan, pages 7–18, October 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Critchlow, M. Ganesh, and R. Musick. Automatic generation of warehouse mediators using an ontology engine. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Knowledge Represenation Meets Databases (KRDB’ 98), volume 10. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U. Dayal and P. Bernstein. On the updatability of relational views. In Proc. 5th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 79), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 1979.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L.M. Haas, D. Kossmann, E.L. Wimmers, and J. Yang. Optimizing queries across diverse data sources. In Proceedings of the 23rd VLDB Conference, pages 276–285, Athens, Greece, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Hull. Managing sematic heterogeneity in databases: A theoretical perspective. In Proceedings of PODS, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Langerak. View updates in relational databases with independent scheme. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 15(1), March 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.J. McBrien. A reference implementation for a formal approach to schema transformation. Technical Report TR98-09, King’s College London, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.J. McBrien and A. Poulovassilis. A formal framework for ER schema transformation. In Proceedings of ER’97, volume 1331 of LNCS, pages 408–421, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P.J. McBrien and A. Poulovassilis. A formalisation of semantic schema integration. Information Systems, 23(5):307–334, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.J. McBrien and A. Poulovassilis. A uniform approach to inter-model transformations. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 11th International Conference CAiSE’99, volume 1626 of LNCS, pages 333–348. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Poulovassilis and P.J. McBrien. A general formal framework for schema transformation. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 28(1):47–71, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.T. Roth and P. Schwarz. Don’t scrap it, wrap it! A wrapper architecture for data sources. In Proceedings of the 23rd VLDB Conference, pages 266–275, Athens, Greece, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Sheth and J. Larson. Federated database systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 22(3):183–236, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Templeton, H. Henley, E. Maros, and D.J. Van Buer. InterViso: Dealing with the complexity of federated database access. The VLDB Journal, 4(2):287–317, April 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M.E. Vidal, L. Raschid, and J-R. Gruser. A meta-wrapper for scaling up to multiple autonomous distributed information sources. In Proceedings of the 3rd IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS98), pages 148–157. IEEE-CS Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Mc Brien
    • 1
  • Alexandra Poulovassi
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computing, Imperial CollegeLondon
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer Science, Birkbeck CollegeUniversity of LondonLondon

Personalised recommendations