Rewriting Ontology-Based Mappings

Data translation consists of the task of moving data from a source database to a target database. This task is usually performed by developing mappings, i.e. executable transformations from the source to the target schema. However, a richer description of the target database semantics may be available in the form of an ontology. This is typically defined as a set of views over the base tables that provides a unified conceptual view of the underlying data. We investigate how the mapping process changes when such a rich conceptualization of the target database is available. We develop a translation algorithm that automatically rewrites a mapping from the source schema to the target ontology into an equivalent mapping from the source to the target databases. Then, we show how to handle this problem when an ontology is available also for the source. Differently from previous approaches, the language we use in view definitions has the full power of non-recursive Datalog with negation. In the paper, we study the implications of adopting such an expressive language. Experiments are conducted to illustrate the trade-off between expressibility of the view language and efficiency of the chase engine used to perform the data exchange.

[1]  Letizia Tanca,et al.  What you Always Wanted to Know About Datalog (And Never Dared to Ask) , 1989, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[2]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Composing schema mappings: Second-order dependencies to the rescue , 2005, TODS.

[3]  Paolo Papotti,et al.  The LLUNATIC Data-Cleaning Framework , 2013, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[4]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Translating Web Data , 2002, VLDB.

[5]  Paolo Papotti,et al.  Mapping and cleaning , 2014, 2014 IEEE 30th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[6]  Ernest Teniente,et al.  Semantic-Based Mappings , 2013, ER.

[7]  Alin Deutsch,et al.  The chase revisited , 2008, PODS.

[8]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Data exchange: semantics and query answering , 2003, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Andrea Calì,et al.  Data integration under integrity constraints , 2004, Inf. Syst..

[10]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Composing schema mappings: second-order dependencies to the rescue , 2004, PODS 2004.

[11]  Paolo Papotti,et al.  Core schema mappings: Scalable core computations in data exchange , 2012, Inf. Syst..

[12]  Rafael Corchuelo,et al.  Generating SPARQL Executable Mappings to Integrate Ontologies , 2011, ER.

[13]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  View-based query answering in Description Logics: Semantics and complexity , 2012, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[14]  Laura M. Haas,et al.  Schema Mapping as Query Discovery , 2000, VLDB.

[15]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Towards a theory of schema-mapping optimization , 2008, PODS.

[16]  Paolo Papotti,et al.  ++Spicy: an OpenSource Tool for Second-Generation Schema Mapping and Data Exchange , 2011, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[17]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Data integration: a theoretical perspective , 2002, PODS.

[18]  Paolo Papotti,et al.  That's All Folks! LLUNATIC Goes Open Source , 2014, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[19]  Catriel Beeri,et al.  A Proof Procedure for Data Dependencies , 1984, JACM.

[20]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  A Semantic Approach to Discovering Schema Mapping Expressions , 2007, 2007 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering.

[21]  Yuan An,et al.  Discovering Semantically Similar Associations (SeSA) for Complex Mappings between Conceptual Models , 2008, ER.

[22]  Ernest Teniente,et al.  Reasoning on UML Class Diagrams with OCL Constraints , 2006, ER.

[23]  Leon Sterling,et al.  The Art of Prolog - Advanced Programming Techniques , 1986 .

[24]  Paolo Papotti,et al.  Concise and Expressive Mappings with +Spicy , 2009, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[25]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Linking Data to Ontologies , 2008, J. Data Semant..