Advertisement

Combining Effectiveness and Efficiency for Schema Matching Evaluation

  • Alsayed Algergawy
  • Eike Schallehn
  • Gunter Saake
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 8)

Abstract

Schema matching plays a central role in many applications that require interoperability among heterogeneous data sources. A good evaluation for different capabilities of schema matching systems has become vital as the complexity of such systems arises. The capabilities of matching systems incorporate different (possibly conflicting) aspects among them match quality and match efficiency. The analysis of efficiency of a schema matching system, if it is done, tends to be done in a way separate from the analysis of effectiveness. In this paper, we present the trade-off between schema matching effectiveness and efficiency as a multi-objective optimization problem. This representation enables us to obtain a combined measure as a compromise between them. We combine both performance aspects in a weighted-average function to determine the cost-effectiveness of a schema matching system. We apply our proposed approach to evaluate two currently existing mainstream schema matching systems namely COMA++ and BTreeMatch. Experimental results showed that, by carefully utilizing both small-scale and large-scale schemas, it is necessary to take the response time of the matching process into account especially in large-scale schemas.

Keywords

Schema matching Schema matching performance Effectiveness Efficiency Cost-effectiveness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernstein, P.A., Melnik, S., Churchill, J.E.: Incremental schema matching. In: VLDB, Korea (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Do, H.H., Melnik, S., Rahm, E.: Comparison of schema matching evaluations. In: the 2nd Int. Workshop on Web Databases (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Do, H.H., Rahm, E.: COMA- a system for flexible combination of schema matching approaches. In: VLDB, pp. 610–621 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Do, H.-H., Rahm, E.: Matching large schemas: Approaches and evaluation. Information Systems 32(6), 857–885 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doan, A., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Reconciling schemas of disparate data sources: A machine-learning approach. SIGMOD, 509–520 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doan, A., Halevy, A.: Semantic integration research in the database community: A brief survey. AAAI AI Magazine 25(1), 83–94 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drumm, C., Schmitt, M., Do, H.-H., Rahm, E.: Quickmig - automatic schema matching for data migration projects. In: Proc. ACM CIKM 2007, Portugal (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duchateau, F., Bellahsene, Z., Hunt, E.: Xbenchmatch: a benchmark for XML schema matching tools. In: VLDB 2007, Austria, pp. 1318–1321 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duchateau, F., Bellahsene, Z., Roche, M.: An indexing structure for automatic schema matching. In: SMDB Workshop, Turkey (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P.A., Rahm, E.: Generic schema matching with cupid. In: VLDB, Italy, pp. 49–58 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marler, R., arora, J.: Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct. Multidisc Optim. 26, 369–395 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Melnik, S., Garcia-Molina, H., Rahm, E.: Similarity flooding: A versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching. In: ICDE 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rijsbergen, C.J.: Information Retrieval, 2nd edn., London (1979)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smiljanic, M.: XML Schema Matching Balancing Efficiency and Effectiveness by means of Clustering. PhD thesis, Twente University (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yatskevich, M.: Prelimanary evaluation of schema matching systems. Technical Report #DIT-03-028, Tornoto University (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang, Z., Che, H., Shi, P., Sun, Y., Gu, J.: Formulation schema matching problem for combinatorial optimization problem. IBIS 1(1), 33–60 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective evolutionaty algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Tran. on EC 3, 257–271 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alsayed Algergawy
    • 1
  • Eike Schallehn
    • 1
  • Gunter Saake
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceOtto-von-Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations