Using conceptual graph theory to support schema integration

  • Paul Johannesson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 823)


Two major problems in schema integration are to identify correspondences between different conceptual schemas and to verify that the proposed correspondences are consistent with the semantics of the schemas. This problem can only be effectively addressed if the conceptual schema is expressed in a semantically rich modelling formalism. We introduce such a modelling formalism, the distinguishing feature of which is the use of case grammar. We show that it is easier to identify correspondences between schemas expressed in this formalism than in schemas formulated in traditional modelling languages. The main reason for this is that case grammar standardizes the terminology in conceptual schemas by providing a set of meaningful and established labels for conceptual relations.


Conceptual Relation Conceptual Schema Predicate Symbol Cardinality Constraint Taxonomy Structure 
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. [Batini86]
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini and S. B. Navathe, “A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration”. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 323–364, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [Beeri89]
    C. Beeri, “Formal Models for Object Oriented Databases”, in First International Conference on Deductive and Object Oriented Databases, Ed. W. Kim, pp. 405–430, Kyoto, North-Holland, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [Biskup86]
    J. Biskup and B. Convent, “A Formal View Integration Method”, in International Conference on the Management of Data, Ed. pp. Washington, ACM, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [Bouzeghoub90]
    M. Bouzeghoub and I. Comyn-Wattian, “View Integration by Semantic Unification and Transformation of Data Structures”, in Ninth International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach, Ed. H. Kangassalo, pp. 413–430, Lausanne, North-Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [Bright90]
    W. Bright and A. Hurson, “A Taxonomy and Curent Issues in Multidatabase Systems”, IEEE Computer, vol. 24, no. 10, 199aGoogle Scholar
  6. [Bruce75]
    B. Bruce, “Case Systems for Natural Language”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, pp. 327–360, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Cben76]
    P. P. Chen, “The Entity-Relationship Model — Toward a Unified View of Data”, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, vol. 1 no. 1, pp. 9–36, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Collet91]
    C. Collet, M. Huhns and W. Shen, “Resource Integration Using a Large Knowledge Base in Carnot”. IEEE Computer, pp. 55–62, December 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [Convent86]
    B. Convent, “Unsolvable Problems Related to roe View Integration Approach”, in International Conference on Database Theory, Ed. pp. 141–156, Rome, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. [Creasy92]
    P. Creasy and B. Moulin, “Extending the Conceptual Graph Approach for Data Conceptual Modelling”, Data and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 223–248, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [ElMasri85]
    R. ElMasri, J. Weeldryer and A. Hevner, “The Category Concept: An Extension to the Entity-Relationship Model”, Data and Knowledge Engineering, vol.1, no.1, 1985Google Scholar
  12. [Gallaire84]
    H. Gallaire, J. Minker and J. M. Nicholas, “Logic and Databases: A Deductive Approach”, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1984.Google Scholar
  13. [Guha90]
    R. Guha and D. Lenat, “CYC: A Midterm Report”, Al Magazine, Fall 1990Google Scholar
  14. [Hammer81]
    M. Hammer and D. McLeod. “Database Description with SDM: A Semantic Database Model”, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, vol.6, no.3, pp. 351–386, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Hull87]
    R. Hull and R. King, “Semantic Database Modeling: Survey, Applications and Research Issues”, ACM Computing Surveys, vol.19, no.3. pp. 201–260, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [ISO82]
    E. I. J. v. Griethuysen, “ISO — Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base”, N69S ISO/TC9/SC5/WG3, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. [Johanneson91]
    P. Johannesson, “A Logic Based Approach to Schema Integration”, in 10th International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach, Ed. T. Teorey, San Fransisco, North-Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. [Johannesson93a]
    P. Johannesson, “A Logical Basis for Schema Integration”, in Third International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering — Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems, Ed. H. Sehet Vienna, IEEE Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. [Johannesson93b]
    P. Johannesson, “Schema Transformations as an Aid in View Integration”, in 5th International Conference on Computer Aided Information Systems Engineering, Ed. C Rolland, Paris, Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. [Johannesson93c]
    P. Johannesson, Schema Integration, Schema Translation, and Interoperability in Federated Information Systems, PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. [Larson89]
    J. A. Larson, S. Navathe and R. ElMasri, “A Theory of Attribute Equivalence in Databases with Applications to Schema Integration”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 449–463, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Lloyd87]
    J. Lloyd, Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. [Motro87]
    A. Motro, “Superviews: Virtual Integration of Multiple Databases”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 13, no. 7 pp. 785–798, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. [Nijssen89]
    G. Nijssen and T. Halpin, Conceptual Schema and Relational Databau Design, Prentice-Hall 1989.Google Scholar
  25. [Peckham88]
    J. Peckham and F. Maryanski, “Semantic Data Modeb”, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 20, no.3. pp. 153–190, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [Sheth90]
    A. P. Sheth and J. A. Larson, “Federated Database Systems for Managing Distributed, Heterogeneous, and Autonomous Dstabases”. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 22, no, 3, pp. 183–236 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [Song92]
    W. W. Song, P. Johannesson and J. A. Bubenko Jr, “Semantic Similarity Relations in Schema Integration”, in 11th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach, Ed. A. M. Tjoa, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. [Sowa84]
    J. F. Sowa, Conceptual Structures — Information Processing in Mind and Machine, Addison-Wesley, 1984.Google Scholar
  29. [Spaccapietra92]
    S. Spaccapietra, C. Parent and Y. Dupont, “Model Independent Assertions for Integration of Heterogeneous Schemas”, The VLDB Journal, vol. 1. no. 2, pp. 81–126, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Johannesson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations