Collaborative Schema Matching Reconciliation

Schema matching is the process of establishing correspondences between the attributes of database schemas for data integration purpose. Although several schema matching tools have been developed, their results are often incomplete or erroneous. To obtain correct attribute correspondences, in practice, human experts edit the mapping results and fix the mapping problems. As the scale and complexity of data integration tasks have increased dramatically in recent years, the reconciliation phase becomes more and more a bottleneck. Moreover, one often needs to establish the correspondences in not only between two but a network of schemas simultaneously. In such reconciliation settings, it is desirable to involve several experts. In this paper, we propose a tool that supports a group of experts to collaboratively reconcile a set of matched correspondences. The experts might have conflicting views whether a given correspondence is correct or not. As one expects global consistency conditions in the network, the conflict resolution might require discussion and negotiation among the experts to resolve such disagreements. We have developed techniques and a tool that allow approaching this reconciliation phase in a systematic way. We represent the expert’s views as arguments to enable formal reasoning on the assertions of the experts. We detect complex dependencies in their arguments, guide and present them the possible consequences of their decisions. These techniques thus can greatly help them to overlook the complex cases and work more effectively.

[1]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Semi-qualitative Reasoning about Distances: A Preliminary Report , 2000, JELIA.

[2]  Pablo Noriega,et al.  A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation , 1997, ATAL.

[3]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  An Argument-based Approach to Mining Opinions from Twitter , 2012, AT.

[4]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Schema and ontology matching with COMA++ , 2005, SIGMOD '05.

[5]  Ryszard Kowalczyk,et al.  On Constraint-Based Reasoning in e-Negotiation Agents , 2000, AMEC.

[6]  Karl Aberer,et al.  Minimizing Human Effort in Reconciling Match Networks , 2013, ER.

[7]  Karl Aberer,et al.  An MAS negotiation support tool for schema matching , 2013, AAMAS.

[8]  Paul P. Maglio,et al.  Data is dead... without what-if models , 2011, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[9]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents , 1998, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[10]  Yannis Charalabidis,et al.  Developing a Science Base for Enterprise Interoperability , 2010, I-ESA.

[11]  Zohra Bellahsene,et al.  (Not) yet another matcher , 2009, CIKM.

[12]  Carles Sierra,et al.  Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[13]  Norman W. Paton,et al.  User Feedback as a First Class Citizen in Information Integration Systems , 2011, CIDR.

[14]  Karl Aberer,et al.  On Leveraging Crowdsourcing Techniques for Schema Matching Networks , 2013, DASFAA.

[15]  Tharam S. Dillon,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, OTM 2010 , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[16]  Zahir Tari,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2008 , 2008, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[17]  Arnon Rosenthal,et al.  The Role of Schema Matching in Large Enterprises , 2009, CIDR.

[18]  Avigdor Gal,et al.  Tuning the ensemble selection process of schema matchers , 2010, Inf. Syst..

[19]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  Semantic Interoperability of Web Services - Challenges and Experiences , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'06).

[20]  Karl Aberer,et al.  Completeness and Ambiguity of Schema Cover , 2013, OTM Conferences.

[21]  Krzysztof R. Apt,et al.  Logic Programming , 1990, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[22]  Arnon Rosenthal,et al.  eTuner: tuning schema matching software using synthetic scenarios , 2007, The VLDB Journal.

[23]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[24]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Argumentation-based negotiation , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[25]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Computing ideal sceptical argumentation , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Paul E. Dunne,et al.  Semi-stable semantics , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[27]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Agents That Reason and Negotiate by Arguing , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[28]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Reaching Agreements Through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[29]  Brian Elvesæter,et al.  Towards enterprise interoperability service utilities , 2008, 2008 12th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops.

[30]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Generic schema matching, ten years later , 2011, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[31]  João F. L. Alcântara,et al.  Cooperative dialogues with conditional arguments , 2012, AAMAS.

[32]  Avigdor Gal,et al.  Uncertain schema matching: the power of not knowing , 2011, CIKM '11.

[33]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Some Reflections on Two Current Trends in Formal Argumentation , 2012, Logic Programs, Norms and Action.

[34]  Zohra Bellahsene,et al.  Matching and Alignment: What Is the Cost of User Post-Match Effort? - (Short Paper) , 2011, OTM Conferences.

[35]  Zohra Bellahsene,et al.  Complex Schema Match Discovery and Validation through Collaboration , 2009, OTM Conferences.

[36]  Zakaria Maamar,et al.  Knowledge-Based Systems , 1991, SOCO 2013.

[37]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Argumentation strategies for plan resourcing , 2011, AAMAS.

[38]  Vicent J. Botti,et al.  The Role of Argumentation on the Future Internet: Reaching agreements on Clouds , 2012, AT.

[39]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Utilizing ASP for Generating and Visualizing Argumentation Frameworks , 2013, ArXiv.

[40]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Pay-as-you-go user feedback for dataspace systems , 2008, SIGMOD Conference.

[41]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  Semantic interoperability in global information systems , 1999, SGMD.

[42]  K. Selçuk Candan,et al.  FICSR: feedback-based inconsistency resolution and query processing on misaligned data sources , 2007, SIGMOD '07.

[43]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[44]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

[45]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VII. Agent Theories Architectures and Languages , 2000 .

[46]  Sylvie Doutre,et al.  On sceptical vs credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems , 2004, NMR.

[47]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  Logic Programs, Norms and Action , 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[48]  Frank Wm. Tompa,et al.  Efficiently updating materialized views , 1986, SIGMOD '86.

[49]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[50]  Matthias Weidlich,et al.  Making sense of top-k matchings: a unified match graph for schema matching , 2012, IIWeb '12.

[51]  Giovambattista Ianni,et al.  Computable Functions in ASP: Theory and Implementation , 2008, ICLP.

[52]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Answer set programming at a glance , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[53]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Towards Large Scale Argumentation Support on the Semantic Web , 2007, AAAI.

[54]  Eric Peukert,et al.  AMC - A framework for modelling and comparing matching systems as matching processes , 2011, 2011 IEEE 27th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[55]  Matteo Magnani,et al.  Uncertain Schema Matching , 2006, SEBD.