Advertisement

Data Mart Integration at Measure Level

  • Claudia Diamantini
  • Domenico Potena
Conference paper

Abstract

In the present literature Data Mart integration is typically considered from a dimension point of view. Approaches elaborate upon the hierarchical structure of dimensions to find the minimum common hierarchy where original dimensions can be mapped to. Although the problem of the conformance of measures has been recognized in the literature (see e.g. Kimball R, Ross M (2002) The Data Warehouse Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Dimensional Modeling (2nd Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, p. 87) as a condition for effective Data Mart integration, it is considered as a pre-requisite, so that integration strategies borrowed from the Database domain can be used. Considering the functional structure of a measure, that is the formula used to compute it, method and tools can be developed to support conformance checking and reconciliation. In this paper we review the problem of Data Mart integration, introducing the major types of conflicts considered in the literature. Next, we define novel types of conflicts hindering the conformance of measures and propose strategies for their reconciliation based on formula manipulation.

Keywords

Data Warehouse Virtual View Data Mart Mathematical Axiom Dimension Conflict 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Kimball R, Ross M (2002) The Data Warehouse Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Dimensional Modeling (2nd Ed.), John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Golfarelli M, Maio D, Rizzi S (1998) The Dimensional Fact Model: a Conceptual Model for Data Warehouses. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 7(2–3):215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tseng F S C, Chen C-W (2005) Integrating heterogeneous data warehouses using XML technologies. Journal of Information Science, 31(3):209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torlone R (2008) Two approaches to the integration of heterogeneous data warehouses, Distrib. Parallel Databases 23(1):69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abelló A, Samos J, Saltor F. (2002) On relationships offering new drill-across possibilities. Proc. of the 5th ACM int. workshop on Data Warehousing and OLAP, ACM.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diamantini C, Potena D (2008) Semantic enrichment of strategic datacubes. Proc. of the 11th ACM int. workshop on Data Warehousing and OLAP, ACM.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diamantini C, Potena D (2011) Thinking Structurally Helps Business Intelligence Design. In: D’Atri A, Ferrara M, George JF, Spagnoletti P (Eds.) Information Technology and Innovation Trends in Organizations, Physica Verlag Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’InformazioneUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations