Style normalization for canonical X-to-O mappings

An X-to-O mapping takes an XML schema as input and returns an object model as output; this object model is meant for programmatic, schema-aware access to XML data. The provision of X-to-O mappings involves various challenges; one of them is addressed by the present paper: variation in style of schema organization, which should not unduly affect the outcome of X-to-O mappings. We devise transformations for style normalization (and conversion); these transformations operate at both levels of the X-to-O mapping: schemas and object models. An important byproduct of the present work is to showcase functional OO programming as a viable setup for devising software transformations.

[1]  Juliana Freire,et al.  Bridging the XML Relational Divide with LegoDB , 2003, IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering.

[2]  Arie van Deursen,et al.  The ASF+SDF Meta-environment: A Component-Based Language Development Environment , 2001 .

[3]  Christopher W. Pidgeon,et al.  DMS®: Program Transformations for Practical Scalable Software Evolution , 2002, IWPSE '02.

[4]  Madhusudhan Govindaraju,et al.  Exploring Remote Object Coherence in XMLWeb Services , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'06).

[5]  Steve Vinoski,et al.  RPC Under Fire , 2005, IEEE Internet Comput..

[6]  David S. Wile,et al.  Abstract Syntax from Concrete Syntax , 1997, Proceedings of the (19th) International Conference on Software Engineering.

[7]  Juliana Freire,et al.  From XML schema to relations: a cost-based approach to XML storage , 2002, Proceedings 18th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[8]  Marcelo Arenas,et al.  An information-theoretic approach to normal forms for relational and XML data , 2003, PODS.

[9]  Eelco Visser,et al.  Stratego/XT 0.16: components for transformation systems , 2006, PEPM '06.

[10]  Ralf Lämmel.  Grammar Adaptation , 2001, FME.

[11]  Erik,et al.  Programming with Circles , Triangles and Rectangles , 2003 .

[12]  Brian Beckman,et al.  LINQ: reconciling object, relations and XML in the .NET framework , 2006, SIGMOD Conference.

[13]  David W. Embley,et al.  Representing Generalization/Specialization in XML Schema , 2005, EMISA.

[14]  Arie van Deursen,et al.  The Asf+Sdf Meta-Environment: a Component-Based Language Development Environment , 2001, LDTA@ETAPS.

[15]  David W. Embley,et al.  Generating compact redundancy-free XML documents from conceptual-model hypergraphs , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[16]  Brett McLaughlin.  Java and XML Data binding , 2002 .

[17]  Sihem Amer-Yahia,et al.  A comprehensive solution to the XML-to-relational mapping problem , 2004, WIDM '04.

[18]  Wolfgang Lohmann.  Format Evolution , 2001 .

[19]  Ralf Lämmel,et al.  Transformation of SDF syntax definitions in the ASF+SDF Meta-Environment , 2001, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Dongwon Lee,et al.  Semantic Data Modeling Using XML Schemas , 2001, ER.

[21]  Marcelo Arenas,et al.  A normal form for XML documents , 2004, TODS.

[22]  William F. Opdyke,et al.  Refactoring object-oriented frameworks , 1992 .

[23]  Tok Wang Ling,et al.  Designing semistructured databases using ORA-SS model , 2001, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering.

[24]  Kevin A. Schneider,et al.  Grammar programming in TXL , 2002, Proceedings. Second IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation.

[25]  Steve Loughran,et al.  Rethinking the Java SOAP Stack ♦ , 2005 .

[26]  James R. Cordy,et al.  Source transformation, analysis and generation in TXL , 2006, PEPM '06.

[27]  Reiko Heckel,et al.  Graph Transformation as a Conceptual and Formal Framework for System Modeling and Model Evolution , 2000, ICALP.

[28]  Peter Pepper,et al.  Lr Parsing = Grammar Transformation + Ll Parsing Making Lr Parsing More Understandable and More Eecient , 1999 .