Recognition and Resolution of Linguistic Conflicts: The Core to a Successful View and Schema Integration
In the field of information system (IS) design and modeling the topic of integrating different views and schemata to a common conceptual schema is a central issue. Integration of two schemata means that they are compared, conflicts between them are identified and resolved, and finally the schemata are merged. Integration is often based on a global ontology that provides the valid concepts and interdependencies of a domain. In this paper we adapt the definition of ontology : “An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization.”. Traditional integration techniques are often based on concept name comparison which even more motivates the use of an ontology as a domain lexicon.
KeywordsDomain Ontology Enterprise Modeling Information System Development Base Ontology Natural Language Text
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bellström P, Carlsson S (2004) Towards an understanding of the mean-ing and the contents of a database through design and reconstruction. In: Vasilecas O et al. (eds) Proceedings of ISD’2004, pp 283-293.Google Scholar
- 2.Bellström P (2005) Using Enterprise Modeling for identification and resolution of homonym conflicts in view integration. In: Vasilecas O et al. (eds) Information Systems Development Advances in Theory, Practice and Education, Springer, pp 265-276.Google Scholar
- 3.Bellström P (2006) View integration in conceptual database design -Problems, approaches and solutions. Licentiate thesis, Karlstad Univer-sity Studies, 2006:5.Google Scholar
- 4.Bellström P, Jakobsson L (2006) Towards a generic and integrated En-terprise Modeling approach to designing databases and software compo-nents. In: Nilsson A G et al. (eds) Advances in Information Systems Development Bridging the Gap between Academia and Industry, Springer, pp 635-646.Google Scholar
- 6.Gustas R, Gustiené P (2004) Towards the enterprise engineering ap-proach for information system modelling across organisational and tech-nical boundaries. In: Camp O et al. (eds) Enterprise Information Systems V, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp 204-215.Google Scholar
- 7.Gustas R, Jakobsson L (2004) Enterprise modelling of component ori-ented information system architectures. In: Fujita H, Gruhn V (eds) Pro-ceedings of SoMeT_W04, IOS Press, pp 88-102.Google Scholar
- 9.Kop C, Mayr H C (1998) Conceptual predesign - Bridging the gap be- tween requirements and conceptual design. In: Proceedings ICRE’98, pp 90-100.Google Scholar
- 10.Kop C, Vöhringer J, Hölbling M, Horn T, Irrasch C, Mayr H C (2005): Tool Supported Extraction of Behaviour Models. In Kaschek R et al. (eds) ISTA2005, GI Edition Lecture Notes in Informatics, pp 63-73.Google Scholar
- 11.Métais E, Kedad Z, Comyn-Wattiau I, Bouzeghoub M (1996) Implemen-tation of a third generation view integration tool. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Applications of Natural Language to Data Bases.Google Scholar
- 12.Rupp C (2004) Requirements Engineering und -Management, 3rd edition, Hanser, Vienna, pp 239ffGoogle Scholar
- 14.Vernadat F B (1996) Enterprise modeling and integration principles and applications. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
- 15.Vöhringer J, Mayr H C (2006) Integration of schemas on the pre- conceptual level using the KCPM-approach. in: Nilsson A G et al. (eds) Advances in Information Systems Development Bridging the Gap between Academia and Industry, Springer, pp 623-634.Google Scholar