On the Problem of Semantic Loss in View Integration

  • Peter Bellström


Integration is a key issue in conceptual database design. However, the integration process is very complex and error prone and may often cause semantic loss. Semantic loss, in this chapter, is described as a problem that occurs if one or several concept names and/or dependencies describing the meaning of a concept are lost during the view integration process. Semantic loss often occurs because of the way resolution methods are used today since not only similarities, but also differences between the views have to be identified, resolved, and simplified. The high focus on technical and implementation issues that most of the modeling languages adopt today may also cause semantic loss. In this chapter we argue that a modeling language that instead puts focus on concept names and dependencies should be applied. We also argue and propose alternative resolution and simplification techniques for name conflicts and inter-schema properties that instead of getting rid of concept names and dependencies keep these as long as possible in the integration process. Applying the proposed resolution and simplification techniques might counter an impoverishment of the language used in the views and/or schema and prevent semantic loss. The proposed resolution techniques might even contribute to a semantically richer global conceptual database schema.


Modeling Language Unify Modeling Language Simplification Technique Information Loss Global Schema 
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. Ambrosio, A.P., Métais, E. and Meunier, J.-N. (1997) The Linguistic Level: Contribution for Conceptual Design, View Integration, Reuse and Documentation. Data & Knowledge Engineering. 21, 111–129.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batini, C. and Lenzerini, M. (1984) A Methodology for Data Schema Integration in the Entity-Relationship Model, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 10, 650–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M. and Navathe, S.B. (1986) A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration, ACM Computing Surveys. 18, 323–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batini, C., Ceri, S. and Navathe, S.B. (1992) Conceptual Database Design An Entity-Relationship Approach. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., Redwood City, California.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellström, P. (2005) Using Enterprise Modeling for Identification and Resolution of Homonym Conflicts in View Integration. In: O. Vasilecas et al. (Eds.), Information Systems Development Advances in Theory, Practice and Education. Springer , New York, pp. 265–276.Google Scholar
  6. Bellström, P. (2006a) View Integration in Conceptual Database Design — Problems, Approaches and Solutions. Licentiate thesis, Karlstad University Press, 2006:5.Google Scholar
  7. Bellström, P. (2006b) Bridging the Gap between Comparison and Conforming the Views in View Integration. In: Y. Manolopoulos et al. (Eds.), Local Proc of the 10th ADBIS Conf., pp. 184–199.Google Scholar
  8. Bellström, P. and Carlsson, S. (2004) Towards an Understanding of the Meaning and the Contents of a Database through Design and Reconstruction. In: O. Vasilecas et al. (Eds.), Proc of the 13th ISD Conf., pp. 283–293.Google Scholar
  9. Bellström, P. and Carlsson, C. (2006) Language Aspects of Conceptual Database Design. In: M. Lind et al. (Eds.), Proc of the 4th ALOIS Conf., pp. 211–223.Google Scholar
  10. Bellström, P. and Jakobsson, L. (2006) Towards a Generic and Integrated Enterprise Modeling Approach to Designing Databases and Software Components. In: A.G. Nilsson et al. (Eds.), Advances in Information Systems Development: Bridging the Gap between Academia and Industry. Springer , New York, pp. 635–646.Google Scholar
  11. Bellström, P., Vöhringer, J. and Salbrechter, A. (2007) Recognition and Resolution of Linguistic Conflicts: The Core to a Successful View and Schema Integration. In:W. Wojtkowski et al. (Eds.), Information Systems Development New Methods and Practices for the Networked Society. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Boman, B., Bubenko, Jr, J.A., Johannesson, P. and Wangler, B. (1997) Conceptual Modelling. Prentice-Hall, Great Britain.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, P. (1976) The Entity-Relationship Model — Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. 1, 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dey, D., Storey, V.C. and Barron, T.M. (1999) Improving Database Design through the Analysis of Relationships. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. 24, 453–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engels, G., Gogolla, M., Hohenstein, U., Hulsmann, K., Lohr-Richter, P., Saake, G. and Ehrich, H.D. (1992) Concepual Modelling of Database Applications using an Extended ER Model. Data & Knowledge Engineering. 9, 157–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, H. and Eder, J. (1998) Integration of Statecharts. In: Proc of the 3rd COOPIS Conf., pp. 364–372.Google Scholar
  17. Gustas, R. (1997) Semantic and Pragmatic Dependencies of Information Systems. Monograph, Technologija, Kaunas.Google Scholar
  18. Gustas, R. and Gustiené, P. (2004) Towards the Enterprise Engineering Approach for Information System Modelling Across Organisational and Technical Boundaries. In: O. Camp et al. (Eds.), Enterprise Information Systems V. Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp. 204–215.Google Scholar
  19. Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A. and van der Weide, Th.P. (2005) A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling. In: L. Delcambre et al. (Eds.), Proc of the 24th ER Conf. Springer, pp. 128–143.Google Scholar
  20. Jakobsson, L. and Bellström, P. (2007) Designing Software Components for Database Consistency — An Enterprise Modeling Approach. In: Information Systems Development New Methods and Practices for the Networked Society. Springer (in print).Google Scholar
  21. Johannesson, P. (1993) Schema Integration, Schema Translation, and Interoperability in Federated Information Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer & Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Royal Institute of Technology, No. 93-010-DSV, Edsbruk.Google Scholar
  22. Lawrence, R. and Barker, K. (2001) Integrating Relational Databases Using Standardized Dictionaries. In: 16th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM Press, pp. 225–230.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, M.L. and Ling, T.W. (2003) A Methodology for Structural Conflict Resolution in the Integration of Entity-Relationship Schemas. Knowledge and Information System. 5, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mannino, M.V. (2006) Database Design, Application Development & Administration. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Maier, D., Ullman, J.D. and Vardi, M.Y. (1984) On the Foundations of the Universal Relation Model, ACM Transactions on Database Systems. 9, 283–308.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin, J. and Odell, J.J. (1998) Object Oriented Methods A Foundation. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  27. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S. and Russo, A. (2001) Making Inconsistency Respectable in Software Development, The Journal of Systems and Software. 58, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parent, C. and Spaccapietra, S. (1998) Issues and Approaches of Database Integration. Communications of the ACM. 41, 166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parsons, J. (2002) Effects on Local Versus Global Schema Diagrams on Verification and Communication in Conceptual Data Modeling. Journal of Management Information Systems. 19, 155–183.Google Scholar
  30. Rauh, O. and Stickel, E. (1993) Searching for Composition in ER Schemes. In: R.A. Elmasri et al. (Eds.), Proc of the 12th ER Conf. Springer, pp. 74–84.Google Scholar
  31. Song, W. (1995) Schema Integration — Principles, Methods, and Applications. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer & Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Royal Institute of Technology, No. 95-019, Edsbruk.Google Scholar
  32. Spaccapietra, S. and Parent, C. (1994) View Integration: a Step Forward in Solving Structural Conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 6, 258–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Storey, V.C. (1993) Understanding Semantic Relationships. VLDB Journal. 2, 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Storey, V.C. (2001) Understanding and Representing Relationship Semantics in Database Design. In: Z. Bouzeghoub et al. (Eds.), Proc of the 5th NLDB Conf, Springer, pp. 79–90.Google Scholar
  35. Teorey, T.J. (1999) Database Modeling & Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  36. Vöhringer, J. and Mayr, H.C. (2006) Integration of Schemas on the Pre-Design Level Using the KCPM-Approach. In: A.G. Nilsson et al. (Eds.), Advances in Information Systems Development: Bridging the Gap between Academia and Industry. Springer, New York , pp. 623–634.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Bellström

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations