Finding Semi-Automatically a Greatest Common Model Thanks to Formal Concept Analysis

Data integration and knowledge capitalization combine data and information coming from different data sources designed by different experts having different purposes. In this paper, we propose to assist the underlying model merging activity. For close models made by experts of various specialities on the same system, we partially automate the identification of a Greatest Common Model (GCM) which is composed of the common concepts (core-concepts) of the different models. Our methodology is based on Formal Concept Analysis which is a method of data analysis based on lattice theory. A decision tree allows to semi-automatically classify concepts from the concept lattices and assist the GCM extraction. We apply our approach on the EIS-Pesticide project, an environmental information system which aims at centralizing knowledge and information produced by different research teams.

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

[2]  Basilis Boutsinas,et al.  Ontology Mapping based on Association Rule Mining , 2009, ICEIS.

[3]  Antonio Cicchetti,et al.  Managing Model Conflicts in Distributed Development , 2008, MoDELS.

[4]  Udo Kelter,et al.  Differences between versions of UML diagrams , 2003, ESEC/FSE-11.

[5]  Anna Formica,et al.  Ontology-based concept similarity in Formal Concept Analysis , 2006, Inf. Sci..

[6]  Gabriele Anderst-Kotsis,et al.  Semantics for Accurate Conflict Detection in SMoVer: Specification, Detection and Presentation by Example , 2010, Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Sandro Bimonte,et al.  The use of UML to design agricultural data warehouses , 2010 .

[8]  Gerd Stumme,et al.  Ontology Merging for Federated Ontologies on the Semantic Web , 2001, OIS@IJCAI.

[9]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Semantic Integration Research in the Database Community : A Brief Survey , 2005 .

[10]  Yannis Kalfoglou,et al.  Ontology mapping: the state of the art , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[11]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  A Survey of Schema-Based Matching Approaches , 2005, J. Data Semant..

[12]  Manuel Wimmer,et al.  A survey on model versioning approaches , 2009, Int. J. Web Inf. Syst..

[13]  Antonio Cicchetti,et al.  A Metamodel Independent Approach to Difference Representation , 2007, J. Object Technol..

[14]  Stefano Spaccapietra,et al.  Issues and approaches of database integration , 1998, CACM.

[15]  Bernhard Ganter,et al.  Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations , 1998 .

[16]  Clémentine Nebut,et al.  Building abstractions in class models: formal concept analysis in a model-driven approach , 2006, MoDELS'06.

[17]  Amedeo Napoli,et al.  Formal Concept Analysis: A Unified Framework for Building and Refining Ontologies , 2008, EKAW.

[18]  Hafedh Mili,et al.  Building and maintaining analysis-level class hierarchies using Galois Lattices , 1993, OOPSLA '93.

[19]  Jean-Rémy Falleri.  Contributions à l'IDM : reconstruction et alignement de modèles de classes , 2009 .

[20]  Stefano Spaccapietra.  Journal on Data Semantics IV , 2005, Journal on Data Semantics IV.

[21]  Marianne Huchard,et al.  Aspects de la réingénierie des modèles UML par analyse de données relationnelles , 2007 .

[22]  Marianne Huchard,et al.  Towards Practical Tools for Mining Abstractions in UML Models , 2006, ICEIS.