On the Problem of Semantic Loss in View Integration

Integration is a key issue in conceptual database design. However, the integration process is very complex and error prone and may often cause semantic loss. Semantic loss, in this chapter, is described as a problem that occurs if one or several concept names and/or dependencies describing the meaning of a concept are lost during the view integration process. Semantic loss often occurs because of the way resolution methods are used today since not only similarities, but also differences between the views have to be identified, resolved, and simplified. The high focus on technical and implementation issues that most of the modeling languages adopt today may also cause semantic loss. In this chapter we argue that a modeling language that instead puts focus on concept names and dependencies should be applied. We also argue and propose alternative resolution and simplification techniques for name conflicts and inter-schema properties that instead of getting rid of concept names and dependencies keep these as long as possible in the integration process. Applying the proposed resolution and simplification techniques might counter an impoverishment of the language used in the views and/or schema and prevent semantic loss. The proposed resolution techniques might even contribute to a semantically richer global conceptual database schema.

[1]  Wei Song,et al.  Schema integration : principles, methods, and applications , 1995 .

[2]  Peter Bellström,et al.  Towards a Generic and Integrated Enterprise Modeling Approach to Designing Databases and Software Components , 2006 .

[3]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Making inconsistency respectable in software development , 2001, J. Syst. Softw..

[4]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  A Methodology for Data Schema Integration in the Entity Relationship Model , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[5]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  Conceptual modelling of database applications using extended ER model , 1992, Data Knowl. Eng..

[6]  Peter Bellström,et al.  Using Enterprise Modeling for Identification and Resolution of Homonym Conflicts in View Integration , 2005 .

[7]  David Maier,et al.  On the foundations of the universal relation model , 1984, TODS.

[8]  James Martin,et al.  Object-oriented methods : a foundation , 1995 .

[9]  Tok Wang Ling,et al.  A Methodology for Structural Conflict Resolution in the Integration of Entity-Relationship Schemas , 2003, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[10]  Peter Bellström,et al.  Bridging the Gap between Comparison and Conforming the Views in View Integration , 2006, ADBIS Research Communications.

[11]  Veda C. Storey Understanding and Representing Relationship Semantics in Database Design , 2000, NLDB.

[12]  Stefano Spaccapietra,et al.  View Integration: A Step Forward in Solving Structural Conflicts , 1994, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[13]  Elisabeth Métais,et al.  The Linguistic Level: Contribution for Conceptual Design, View Integration, Reuse and Documentation , 1997, Data Knowl. Eng..

[14]  Shamkant B. Navathe,et al.  Conceptual Database Design: An Entity-Relationship Approach , 1991 .

[15]  Peter P. Chen The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data , 1975, VLDB '75.

[16]  Wita Wojtkowski,et al.  Advances in Information Systems Development: New Methods and Practice for the Networked Society , 2007 .

[17]  Heinrich C. Mayr,et al.  Integration of Schemas on the Pre-Design Level Using the KCPM-Approach , 2006 .

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

[19]  Magnus Boman,et al.  Conceptual modelling , 1997 .

[20]  Peter Bellström,et al.  Recognition and Resolution of Linguistic Conflicts: The Core to a Successful View and Schema Integration , 2007 .

[21]  Toby J. Teorey,et al.  Database modeling & design , 1999 .

[22]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Understanding semantic relationships , 1993, The VLDB Journal.

[23]  Paul Johannesson Schema integration, schema translation, and interoperability in federated information systems , 1993 .

[24]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling , 2005, ER.

[25]  Peter Bellström,et al.  Language Aspects of Conceptual Database Design , 2006 .

[26]  Peter Bellström,et al.  Towards an Understanding of the Meaning and the Contents of a Database through Design and Reconstruction , 2004 .

[27]  Slimane Hammoudi,et al.  Enterprise Information Systems V , 2004 .

[28]  Remigijus Gustas,et al.  Towards the Enterprise Engineering Approach for Information System Modelling Across Organisational and Technical Boundaries , 2003, ICEIS.

[29]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Improving database design through the analysis of relationships , 1999, TODS.

[30]  Peter Bellström View Integration in Conceptual Database Design : Problems, Approaches and Solutions , 2006 .

[31]  Ken Barker,et al.  Integrating relational database schemas using a standardized dictionary , 2001, SAC.

[32]  Anders G. Nilsson,et al.  Advances in Information Systems Development: : Bridging the Gap between Academia & Industry , 2006 .

[33]  Remigijus Gustas Semantic and Pragmatic Dependencies of Information Systems , 1997 .

[34]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  Effects of Local Versus Global Schema Diagrams on Verification and Communication in Conceptual Data Modeling , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[35]  Peter Bellström,et al.  Designing Software Components for Database Consistency – An Enterprise Modeling Approach , 2007 .

[36]  Johann Eder,et al.  Integration of statecharts , 1998, Proceedings. 3rd IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (Cat. No.98EX122).