Extended FRAG-BASE schema-matching method for multi-version open GIS Web services retrieval

The OGC Web Service (OWS) schemas have the characteristics of a complex element structure, are distributed and large scale, have differences in element naming, and are available in different versions. Applying conventional matching approaches may lead to not only poor quality, but also bad performance. In this article, the OWS schema file decomposition, fragment presentation, fragment identification, fragment element match, and combination of match results are developed based on the extended FRAG-BASE (fragment-based) schema-matching method. Different versions of Web Feature Service (WFS) and Web Coverage Service (WCS) schema-matching experiments show that the average recall of the extended FRAG-BASE matching for the schemas is above 80%, the average precision reaches 90%, the average overall achieves 85%, and the matching efficiency increases by 50% as compared with that of the COMA and CONTEXT matcher. The multi-version WFS retrieval under the Antarctic Spatial Data Infrastructure (AntSDI) data service environment demonstrates the feasibility and superiority of the extended FRAG-BASE method.

[1]  Prasenjit Mitra,et al.  Semi-automatic Integration of Knowledge Sources , 1999 .

[2]  Michel C. A. Klein,et al.  Reasoning and change management in modular ontologies , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

[3]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  COMA - A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches , 2002, VLDB.

[4]  Jie Zhang,et al.  Towards Imaging Large-Scale Ontologies for Quick Understanding and Analysis , 2005, International Semantic Web Conference.

[5]  Chris Clifton,et al.  Database Integration Using Neural Networks: Implementation and Experiences , 2000, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[6]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Matching large schemas: Approaches and evaluation , 2007, Inf. Syst..

[7]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Generic Schema Matching with Cupid , 2001, VLDB.

[8]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Learning Source Descriptions for Data Integration , 2000 .

[9]  M. C. Kennicutt,et al.  Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research , 2007 .

[10]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Matching large XML schemas , 2004, SGMD.

[11]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classification and use , 2006, WWW '06.

[12]  Eran Toch,et al.  Context-Based Matching and Ranking of Web Services for Composition , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Services Computing.

[13]  Tova Milo,et al.  Using Schema Matching to Simplify Heterogeneous Data Translation , 1998, VLDB.

[14]  Silvana Castano,et al.  Global Viewing of Heterogeneous Data Sources , 2001, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[15]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Reconciling schemas of disparate data sources: a machine-learning approach , 2001, SIGMOD '01.

[16]  Chris Clifton,et al.  Experience with a Combined Approach to Attribute-Matching Across Heterogeneous Databases , 1997, DS-7.

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

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

[19]  Chris Clifton,et al.  SEMINT: A tool for identifying attribute correspondences in heterogeneous databases using neural networks , 2000, Data Knowl. Eng..

[20]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Comparison of Schema Matching Evaluations , 2002, Web, Web-Services, and Database Systems.

[21]  Yuzhong Qu,et al.  Block Matching for Ontologies , 2006, SEMWEB.